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.
This is true that the only reference to an Echo being an object is an unofficial quote from Jeremy Crawford. And this FAQ bases a lot of assumptions off that quote. And there are a great many odd contradictions in the rules as such. But what if the Echo isn’t meant to be an object. What if it is in fact it is a ghostly version of the Knight from another timeline, and thus should be treated as a creature instead.
So here is my question. What would change if the Echo was treated as a creature instead of an object? And what would break?
Well, certainly spells would effect the Echo differently. It might make it more vulnerable to attacks, but it might also allow it to be buffed. That also means you might be able to grant the Echo temporary hit points though any number of means. How it interacts with other creatures might also change, and answer things such as the posts above – it now makes more sense for it to “control” the 5x5 space around it or let allies pass through. If an Echo was an creature, it would also be considered an ally, changing things like how sneak attack might work and certainly how flanking works with an Echo. What else?
And the final question, would treating an Echo like a creature instead of an object be better for the game, or not?
If it were a creature then it would have a ton of new interactions like having to make saving throws, benefit from things like Bardic inspiration, and what not.
I wouldn't call it a creature. It cannot think or act on its own. It does not have ability scores (it uses the Echo Knight's where relevant) or any other statistics beyond what it is given. All it has to call its own is a scaling Armor Class and one Hit Point.
Nowhere, in any of the books, is it said there are only creatures and objects. Not even in the rules for the Attack action is there a binary of only being able to target creatures or objects. And the echo is not explicitly called out as a creature or object, so I'm reluctant to call it either of those things. I think the simplest solution is to treat the echo as something else entirely. Crawford's tweet was probably too reductionist, but I understand where he was coming from. Even if we were to default to Crawford's authority and label it a creature, it's clearly an exception. We know this because the echo uses the Echo Knight's statistics for saving throws, and objects don't care about saving throws.
Objects automatically fail all Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects tied to the others. So then why even bother saying it uses the Echo Knight's saving throws?
Objects are also immune to poison and psychic damage, but Manifest Echo lacks that qualifier. Does that mean if someone can find a way to target an echo with one of those damage types that it will be harmed?
If you're attempting to use an echo to reduce fall damage, per Tasha's, it cannot make the Dexterity saving throw to avoid the impact if its not a creature. Does this mean the impactor is forced to land beside the echo and take the full amount of falling damage?
I know some of the above has been covered already in the FAQ, but I think it bears repeating as a rhetorical argument. If the echo is an object, then it can implicitly do things no other object can do. Its not bound by the usual rules of an object. And the implicit nature of how it works is frustrating because so many of us want explicit rules for everything. We want legalese. We think it makes the game easier to run.
Can I catapult an Echo? I assume this would kill the Echo upon striking something/someone, but I'm wondering if you could catapult an echo 90 feet and if you don't hit anything, then bonus action teleport to it.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the maximum weight of objects that you can target with this spell increases by 5 pounds, and the damage increases by 1d8, for each slot level above 1st.
In the above thought experiment, I would offer this: The echo is neither a creature nor an object, because we have explicit rules for these things. We have explicit rules stating that it is not a creature, so it is not. But we also have rules for objects that the echo does not appear to follow. I would therefor surmise that it is not an object. However, it can be targeted, so, for purposes of interaction with the world around it, an echo is merely (and completely) a target.
Can I catapult an Echo? I assume this would kill the Echo upon striking something/someone, but I'm wondering if you could catapult an echo 90 feet and if you don't hit anything, then bonus action teleport to it.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried...
Instinctively, I think most would say "no", without analyzing it too closely. Probably the easiest way to dismiss it, is the weight restriction. What would be the weight on this magic image, which arguably might not even be an object in the first place? Well, no specific weight is stated, so it's reasonably no weight.If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight, which would be too heavy. Either way, not eligible.
In the above thought experiment, I would offer this: The echo is neither a creature nor an object, because we have explicit rules for these things. We have explicit rules stating that it is not a creature, so it is not. But we also have rules for objects that the echo does not appear to follow. I would therefor surmise that it is not an object. However, it can be targeted, so, for purposes of interaction with the world around it, an echo is merely (and completely) a target.
Seeker95, our reasoning makes a degree of sense. Assuming it is only a 'target', how would it interact with various spells that dictate they only affect creatures or objects? Is it immune? How is a 'target' defined?
So, if we assume an Echo isn't an "object", how might we answer all the other questions about how it might interact with the world around it? - Can it be damaged? - Can it be targeted by spells? - Can you grab it? - Can you push it? - Can you move through its 5x5 space? - Can it flank? - Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks? - Can it pass through walls or creatures? - Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?) - Does it make noise?
Part of me equates an Echo to a combination between a Spiritual Weapon (a "floating, spectral" weapon) and Bigby's Hand ("an object" that be hit, but "doesn't fill its space" ), though the Echo Knight text isn't as explicit.
Instead of treating the Echo as an "object", what if we treat it as a "image" (which is literally what is it says in the text)? Here is how I might answer the above questions if we treated the Echo more like an image or Spiritual Weapon: - Can it be damaged? Yes, the text explicitly provides an AC and HP, but this doesn't mean it has to have a physical form. I imagine a weapon passing through it as being enough to destroy it. - Can it be targeted by spells? Yes, but only by spells that don't explicitly state they target objects or creatures only? - Can you grab it? No. It doesn't have a physical property. - Can you push it? No. It doesn't have a physical property. - Can you move through its 5x5 space? Yes, but you can't end your movement there. If it is an image, it is not physical. BUT, the text says it "occupies its space", which we could take to mean that something else can't occupy the same space as it at then end of their/its turn. Perhaps this is a magical rather than physical force? - Can it flank? No. It isn't a creature. - Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks? No. It isn't a creature - Can it pass through walls or creatures? Yes, it has no physical form, it is only an image. But I would say it can't end its turn in a wall or creature, referring to text that says it "occupies its space". - Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?) No. - Does it make noise? No.
In the above thought experiment, I would offer this: The echo is neither a creature nor an object, because we have explicit rules for these things. We have explicit rules stating that it is not a creature, so it is not. But we also have rules for objects that the echo does not appear to follow. I would therefor surmise that it is not an object. However, it can be targeted, so, for purposes of interaction with the world around it, an echo is merely (and completely) a target.
Seeker95, our reasoning makes a degree of sense. Assuming it is only a 'target', how would it interact with various spells that dictate they only affect creatures or objects? Is it immune? How is a 'target' defined?
So, if we assume an Echo isn't an "object", how might we answer all the other questions about how it might interact with the world around it? - Can it be damaged? - Can it be targeted by spells? - Can you grab it? - Can you push it? - Can you move through its 5x5 space? - Can it flank? - Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks? - Can it pass through walls or creatures? - Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?) - Does it make noise?
Part of me equates an Echo to a combination between a Spiritual Weapon (a "floating, spectral" weapon) and Bigby's Hand ("an object" that be hit, but "doesn't fill its space" ), though the Echo Knight text isn't as explicit.
Instead of treating the Echo as an "object", what if we treat it as a "image" (which is literally what is it says in the text)? Here is how I might answer the above questions if we treated the Echo more like an image or Spiritual Weapon: - Can it be damaged? Yes, the text explicitly provides an AC and HP, but this doesn't mean it has to have a physical form. I imagine a weapon passing through it as being enough to destroy it. - Can it be targeted by spells? Yes, but only by spells that don't explicitly state they target objects or creatures only? - Can you grab it? No. It doesn't have a physical property. - Can you push it? No. It doesn't have a physical property. - Can you move through its 5x5 space? Yes, but you can't end your movement there. If it is an image, it is not physical. BUT, the text says it "occupies its space", which we could take to mean that something else can't occupy the same space as it at then end of their/its turn. Perhaps this is a magical rather than physical force? - Can it flank? No. It isn't a creature. - Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks? No. It isn't a creature - Can it pass through walls or creatures? Yes, it has no physical form, it is only an image. But I would say it can't end its turn in a wall or creature, referring to text that says it "occupies its space". - Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?) No. - Does it make noise? No.
Thoughts or responses anyone?
This pains me to say it, but this is exactly why I go with Jeremy Crawford's tweet on this: "It's supposed to be an object."
but, if we don't take Crawford's stated RAI on the matter, I do agree that your logic as you have presented it makes perfect sense. But it also *breaks* Echo Knight because it renders it immune to a vast majority of spells, including "point based" spells such as Fireball by virtue of neither being a creature or an object.
NOTE: Fireball affects flammable objects (which an abstract "image" is not) so even an Object Echo is immune to it, but... it was one of the only point based spells I could remember off hand at the time of writing the post.
Additional note: I say "Breaks," but it already has a whole kettle of fish which is why this thread exists, but... hyperbole.
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!"
Can I catapult an Echo? I assume this would kill the Echo upon striking something/someone, but I'm wondering if you could catapult an echo 90 feet and if you don't hit anything, then bonus action teleport to it.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried...
Instinctively, I think most would say "no", without analyzing it too closely. Probably the easiest way to dismiss it, is the weight restriction. What would be the weight on this magic image, which arguably might not even be an object in the first place? Well, no specific weight is stated, so it's reasonably no weight.If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight, which would be too heavy. Either way, not eligible.
Its been made very clear by Jeremy Crawford and this thread itself (see the first post) that the echo is an object. I think the weight restriction on the catapult object spell is more about making sure you cant catapult large objects, not small ones. A ring certainly weighs less than one pound, but I cant imagine why any DM would not let you catapult one. We also know that the echo takes up space, meaning it has some mass. Mass means weight.
It's the big problem with the class. Interactions with the Echo are largely up to the DM at the table. Which is fine from a actual game play perspective. My table runs the class similarly to how The_Humble_Giant laid out in his last post. If I played with a different group, it might play closer to Jounichi1983's interpretation. Both work, I wont say one or the other breaks the game or the class (I of course have my preferences), but are incompatible with each other and can cause vastly different gameplay.
This make it a hard class to analyze as any interpretation is likely some level of 'homebrew'. I am a proponent that a class feature doesn't do something unless it says it does or operates it in a 'class' that is well defined. 'Creature' is a good example, its a class with specific interactions, I seldom have issues with familiars, beasts, steel defenders...etc. Objects are a bit more nebulous.
It seems like the question 'How does the Echo interact with _____?', has the result of 'It depends on the DM's interpretation of object interactions', which is unsatisfying. I assume we will get some errata down the line that will settle some of the major issues. In the mean time, what are the biggest issues with the class that everyone thinks may be problematic?
For me it's:
The Echo acting as a wall
The Echo being used as a platform
The Echo flying (I know I am wrong on this one, its just an odd thing for it to do in my mind)
But what does everyone think are the issues? I may just be making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Personally, I view the echo as a sort of Schrödinger's cat. It's both a creature and an object, depending on the circumstances. For example, it occupies its space. The only other time we see that with in a feature or spell, that I can think of, are guardian of faith and illusory dragon. The latter of the two actually goes a step further, clarifying that as an image it occupies its space "as if it were a creature." This would mean you cannot simply walk through it. Rather, it (or more accurately the spellcaster) must permit you passage. And its space counts as difficult terrain. Applying this to the echo seems easy enough, even if it isn't explicitly stated.
So, the echo is a creature for the purposes of providing cover. It doesn't fill a space like a wall or pillar, and cannot be stood upon. Can it be grappled? Technically, objects cannot be grappled. They're just picked up and moved. But the echo, occupying its space like a creature, perhaps could be? Peter Pan literally wrestled with his shadow in the Darling nursey and holy crapbaskets that could change everything. I think it's reasonable to say the echo certainly isn't solid enough to be stood upon, but since it occupies space like a creature and uses the Echo Knight's saving throws it can attempt a Dexterity saving throw to avoid being fallen on. Which means someone else, like the Echo Knight, could use the echo to split the damage from a fall. That still flies in the face, however, of objects automatically failing Dexterity saving throws.
And could a Soulknife rogue, using Psychic Blades, still damage it? Technically, no, but maybe. I don't have an easy answer.
Can I catapult an Echo? I assume this would kill the Echo upon striking something/someone, but I'm wondering if you could catapult an echo 90 feet and if you don't hit anything, then bonus action teleport to it.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried...
Instinctively, I think most would say "no", without analyzing it too closely. Probably the easiest way to dismiss it, is the weight restriction. What would be the weight on this magic image, which arguably might not even be an object in the first place? Well, no specific weight is stated, so it's reasonably no weight.If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight, which would be too heavy. Either way, not eligible.
Its been made very clear by Jeremy Crawford and this thread itself (see the first post) that the echo is an object. I think the weight restriction on the catapult object spell is more about making sure you cant catapult large objects, not small ones. A ring certainly weighs less than one pound, but I cant imagine why any DM would not let you catapult one. We also know that the echo takes up space, meaning it has some mass. Mass means weight.
Hence the "If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight", because it is the same size as the knight. It's hard to speculate the density of a magic image. It might be true that the weight restriction is mostly for not being able to catapult large objects, like the size of a person. But then that's exactly what this is.
I’m curious how would Way of Mercy, Hands of Harm and Hands of Healing work with Unleash Incarnation? Or would it not work? I’m trying to make a Echo Knight 3/ Monk 6. Thank you.
I’m curious how would Way of Mercy, Hands of Harm and Hands of Healing work with Unleash Incarnation? Or would it not work? I’m trying to make a Echo Knight 3/ Monk 6. Thank you.
Unleash Incarnation: Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo's position.
Hands of Harm: When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage
Hands of Healing: When you use your Flurry of Blows, you can replace one of the unarmed strikes with a use of this feature without spending a ki point for the healing.
Flurry of Blows: Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
Hands of Harm: Can be used whenever you hit a creature with an unarmed strike. As long as the additional attack is unarmed, this works with Unleash Incarnation.
Hands of Healing: Specifically replaces one of the attacks from the Flurry of Blows, this has no interaction with Unleash Incarnation. Even if you rule that you can use FoB in between attacks, and technically use UI after, the same amount of attacks are made, and in the end wouldn't make a difference anyway.
I’m curious how would Way of Mercy, Hands of Harm and Hands of Healing work with Unleash Incarnation? Or would it not work? I’m trying to make a Echo Knight 3/ Monk 6. Thank you.
Honestly it would probably be cool. A common monk limitation is range. While you are really mobile, obstacles and terrain can make engaging hard. You could just spawn an echo next to them, and pop pop!
Obviously bonus action economy would be quite crowded, but the heal and action surge may make up for it. Obviously you would be aiming for a dex-based fighter. Certainly possible and interesting!
Using the FAQ a lot when playing the Echo Knight myself. Thank you for making it so awesome. But could you maybe fix the point 15 under Movement matching with the new reading of the Echo not disappearing as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
--
Q: How far can an Echo Knight move in a single round with the aid of an Echo and assuming a movement speed of 30'? A: In one round, if a Knight already has an Echo manifested that is 30’ away, the Echo can move another 30’ further away on that turn. Then the Knight can swap places with it (costing 15’ of movement and a bonus action). The Knight can then move an additional 15’ – for a total of 75’ before using the Knight’s action or Action surge. The Echo will still disappear at the end of the round because it has moved more than 30’ away from the Knight.
It is worth noting than an Echo Knight cannot manifest an Echo and swap places with it in the same turn.
--
So in that example you would end your turn within 15 feet of the Echo right (assuming no other actions taken) and by the new reading it should not poof out then right?
Using the FAQ a lot when playing the Echo Knight myself. Thank you for making it so awesome. But could you maybe fix the point 15 under Movement matching with the new reading of the Echo not disappearing as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
--
Q: How far can an Echo Knight move in a single round with the aid of an Echo and assuming a movement speed of 30'? A: In one round, if a Knight already has an Echo manifested that is 30’ away, the Echo can move another 30’ further away on that turn. Then the Knight can swap places with it (costing 15’ of movement and a bonus action). The Knight can then move an additional 15’ – for a total of 75’ before using the Knight’s action or Action surge. The Echo will still disappear at the end of the round because it has moved more than 30’ away from the Knight.
It is worth noting than an Echo Knight cannot manifest an Echo and swap places with it in the same turn.
--
So in that example you would end your turn within 15 feet of the Echo right (assuming no other actions taken) and by the new reading it should not poof out then right?
This question might have already been asked, but would an echo still disappear if the creature that summons the echo does not technically sleep? For example, a Warforged's Sentry's Rest, since it doesn't render you unconscious. And would it work with any other creatures?
This question might have already been asked, but would an echo still disappear if the creature that summons the echo does not technically sleep? For example, a Warforged's Sentry's Rest, since it doesn't render you unconscious. And would it work with any other creatures?
The echo vanishes when the user is incapacitated. It should therefore stay active during Sentry's Rest, and also during an Elf's Trance, as neither of them make the user unconscious (and therefore do not make them incapacitated).
Using the FAQ a lot when playing the Echo Knight myself. Thank you for making it so awesome. But could you maybe fix the point 15 under Movement matching with the new reading of the Echo not disappearing as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
--
Q: How far can an Echo Knight move in a single round with the aid of an Echo and assuming a movement speed of 30'? A: In one round, if a Knight already has an Echo manifested that is 30’ away, the Echo can move another 30’ further away on that turn. Then the Knight can swap places with it (costing 15’ of movement and a bonus action). The Knight can then move an additional 15’ – for a total of 75’ before using the Knight’s action or Action surge. The Echo will still disappear at the end of the round because it has moved more than 30’ away from the Knight.
It is worth noting than an Echo Knight cannot manifest an Echo and swap places with it in the same turn.
--
So in that example you would end your turn within 15 feet of the Echo right (assuming no other actions taken) and by the new reading it should not poof out then right?
Correct
Not quite. Because the "teleport" swaps the knight and the echo's position, the echo would be in the same space where the knight was when they used their action to "teleport." In that example, since the bonus action teleport was used before the knight used any of their movement (this is how you cover the most ground utilizing the echo) the echo would be 75' away from the knight and will be destroyed unless the knight can get themself back to within 30' of the echo before the end of their turn. This is why, although Echo Knights can cover some insane ground, they're a lot like the tabaxi in that they can only really do it every other round, and only if certain other variables fall into place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a thought experiment that I’d love to throw out to the group for those interested.
Jounichi1983 wrote:
This is true that the only reference to an Echo being an object is an unofficial quote from Jeremy Crawford. And this FAQ bases a lot of assumptions off that quote. And there are a great many odd contradictions in the rules as such. But what if the Echo isn’t meant to be an object. What if it is in fact it is a ghostly version of the Knight from another timeline, and thus should be treated as a creature instead.
So here is my question. What would change if the Echo was treated as a creature instead of an object? And what would break?
Well, certainly spells would effect the Echo differently. It might make it more vulnerable to attacks, but it might also allow it to be buffed. That also means you might be able to grant the Echo temporary hit points though any number of means. How it interacts with other creatures might also change, and answer things such as the posts above – it now makes more sense for it to “control” the 5x5 space around it or let allies pass through. If an Echo was an creature, it would also be considered an ally, changing things like how sneak attack might work and certainly how flanking works with an Echo. What else?
And the final question, would treating an Echo like a creature instead of an object be better for the game, or not?
If it were a creature then it would have a ton of new interactions like having to make saving throws, benefit from things like Bardic inspiration, and what not.
I wouldn't call it a creature. It cannot think or act on its own. It does not have ability scores (it uses the Echo Knight's where relevant) or any other statistics beyond what it is given. All it has to call its own is a scaling Armor Class and one Hit Point.
Nowhere, in any of the books, is it said there are only creatures and objects. Not even in the rules for the Attack action is there a binary of only being able to target creatures or objects. And the echo is not explicitly called out as a creature or object, so I'm reluctant to call it either of those things. I think the simplest solution is to treat the echo as something else entirely. Crawford's tweet was probably too reductionist, but I understand where he was coming from. Even if we were to default to Crawford's authority and label it a creature, it's clearly an exception. We know this because the echo uses the Echo Knight's statistics for saving throws, and objects don't care about saving throws.
I know some of the above has been covered already in the FAQ, but I think it bears repeating as a rhetorical argument. If the echo is an object, then it can implicitly do things no other object can do. Its not bound by the usual rules of an object. And the implicit nature of how it works is frustrating because so many of us want explicit rules for everything. We want legalese. We think it makes the game easier to run.
Can I catapult an Echo? I assume this would kill the Echo upon striking something/someone, but I'm wondering if you could catapult an echo 90 feet and if you don't hit anything, then bonus action teleport to it.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the maximum weight of objects that you can target with this spell increases by 5 pounds, and the damage increases by 1d8, for each slot level above 1st.
In the above thought experiment, I would offer this:
The echo is neither a creature nor an object, because we have explicit rules for these things. We have explicit rules stating that it is not a creature, so it is not. But we also have rules for objects that the echo does not appear to follow. I would therefor surmise that it is not an object. However, it can be targeted, so, for purposes of interaction with the world around it, an echo is merely (and completely) a target.
Instinctively, I think most would say "no", without analyzing it too closely. Probably the easiest way to dismiss it, is the weight restriction.
What would be the weight on this magic image, which arguably might not even be an object in the first place? Well, no specific weight is stated, so it's reasonably no weight.If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight, which would be too heavy. Either way, not eligible.
Seeker95, our reasoning makes a degree of sense. Assuming it is only a 'target', how would it interact with various spells that dictate they only affect creatures or objects? Is it immune? How is a 'target' defined?
So, if we assume an Echo isn't an "object", how might we answer all the other questions about how it might interact with the world around it?
- Can it be damaged?
- Can it be targeted by spells?
- Can you grab it?
- Can you push it?
- Can you move through its 5x5 space?
- Can it flank?
- Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks?
- Can it pass through walls or creatures?
- Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?)
- Does it make noise?
Part of me equates an Echo to a combination between a Spiritual Weapon (a "floating, spectral" weapon) and Bigby's Hand ("an object" that be hit, but "doesn't fill its space" ), though the Echo Knight text isn't as explicit.
Instead of treating the Echo as an "object", what if we treat it as a "image" (which is literally what is it says in the text)? Here is how I might answer the above questions if we treated the Echo more like an image or Spiritual Weapon:
- Can it be damaged? Yes, the text explicitly provides an AC and HP, but this doesn't mean it has to have a physical form. I imagine a weapon passing through it as being enough to destroy it.
- Can it be targeted by spells? Yes, but only by spells that don't explicitly state they target objects or creatures only?
- Can you grab it? No. It doesn't have a physical property.
- Can you push it? No. It doesn't have a physical property.
- Can you move through its 5x5 space? Yes, but you can't end your movement there. If it is an image, it is not physical. BUT, the text says it "occupies its space", which we could take to mean that something else can't occupy the same space as it at then end of their/its turn. Perhaps this is a magical rather than physical force?
- Can it flank? No. It isn't a creature.
- Does it provoke Opportunity Attacks? No. It isn't a creature
- Can it pass through walls or creatures? Yes, it has no physical form, it is only an image. But I would say it can't end its turn in a wall or creature, referring to text that says it "occupies its space".
- Does it displace water? (Does it have mass?) No.
- Does it make noise? No.
Thoughts or responses anyone?
This pains me to say it, but this is exactly why I go with Jeremy Crawford's tweet on this: "It's supposed to be an object."
but, if we don't take Crawford's stated RAI on the matter, I do agree that your logic as you have presented it makes perfect sense. But it also *breaks* Echo Knight because it renders it immune to a vast majority of spells, including "point based" spells such as Fireball by virtue of neither being a creature or an object.
NOTE: Fireball affects flammable objects (which an abstract "image" is not) so even an Object Echo is immune to it, but... it was one of the only point based spells I could remember off hand at the time of writing the post.
Additional note: I say "Breaks," but it already has a whole kettle of fish which is why this thread exists, but... hyperbole.
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!"
Its been made very clear by Jeremy Crawford and this thread itself (see the first post) that the echo is an object.
I think the weight restriction on the catapult object spell is more about making sure you cant catapult large objects, not small ones. A ring certainly weighs less than one pound, but I cant imagine why any DM would not let you catapult one.
We also know that the echo takes up space, meaning it has some mass. Mass means weight.
It's the big problem with the class. Interactions with the Echo are largely up to the DM at the table. Which is fine from a actual game play perspective. My table runs the class similarly to how The_Humble_Giant laid out in his last post. If I played with a different group, it might play closer to Jounichi1983's interpretation. Both work, I wont say one or the other breaks the game or the class (I of course have my preferences), but are incompatible with each other and can cause vastly different gameplay.
This make it a hard class to analyze as any interpretation is likely some level of 'homebrew'. I am a proponent that a class feature doesn't do something unless it says it does or operates it in a 'class' that is well defined. 'Creature' is a good example, its a class with specific interactions, I seldom have issues with familiars, beasts, steel defenders...etc. Objects are a bit more nebulous.
It seems like the question 'How does the Echo interact with _____?', has the result of 'It depends on the DM's interpretation of object interactions', which is unsatisfying. I assume we will get some errata down the line that will settle some of the major issues. In the mean time, what are the biggest issues with the class that everyone thinks may be problematic?
For me it's:
The Echo acting as a wall
The Echo being used as a platform
The Echo flying (I know I am wrong on this one, its just an odd thing for it to do in my mind)
But what does everyone think are the issues? I may just be making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Personally, I view the echo as a sort of Schrödinger's cat. It's both a creature and an object, depending on the circumstances. For example, it occupies its space. The only other time we see that with in a feature or spell, that I can think of, are guardian of faith and illusory dragon. The latter of the two actually goes a step further, clarifying that as an image it occupies its space "as if it were a creature." This would mean you cannot simply walk through it. Rather, it (or more accurately the spellcaster) must permit you passage. And its space counts as difficult terrain. Applying this to the echo seems easy enough, even if it isn't explicitly stated.
So, the echo is a creature for the purposes of providing cover. It doesn't fill a space like a wall or pillar, and cannot be stood upon. Can it be grappled? Technically, objects cannot be grappled. They're just picked up and moved. But the echo, occupying its space like a creature, perhaps could be? Peter Pan literally wrestled with his shadow in the Darling nursey and holy crapbaskets that could change everything. I think it's reasonable to say the echo certainly isn't solid enough to be stood upon, but since it occupies space like a creature and uses the Echo Knight's saving throws it can attempt a Dexterity saving throw to avoid being fallen on. Which means someone else, like the Echo Knight, could use the echo to split the damage from a fall. That still flies in the face, however, of objects automatically failing Dexterity saving throws.
And could a Soulknife rogue, using Psychic Blades, still damage it? Technically, no, but maybe. I don't have an easy answer.
Hence the "If it had, then, I guess the same as the knight", because it is the same size as the knight. It's hard to speculate the density of a magic image.
It might be true that the weight restriction is mostly for not being able to catapult large objects, like the size of a person. But then that's exactly what this is.
I’m curious how would Way of Mercy, Hands of Harm and Hands of Healing work with Unleash Incarnation? Or would it not work? I’m trying to make a Echo Knight 3/ Monk 6. Thank you.
Even if you rule that you can use FoB in between attacks, and technically use UI after, the same amount of attacks are made, and in the end wouldn't make a difference anyway.
Honestly it would probably be cool. A common monk limitation is range. While you are really mobile, obstacles and terrain can make engaging hard. You could just spawn an echo next to them, and pop pop!
Obviously bonus action economy would be quite crowded, but the heal and action surge may make up for it. Obviously you would be aiming for a dex-based fighter. Certainly possible and interesting!
Using the FAQ a lot when playing the Echo Knight myself. Thank you for making it so awesome. But could you maybe fix the point 15 under Movement matching with the new reading of the Echo not disappearing as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
--
Q: How far can an Echo Knight move in a single round with the aid of an Echo and assuming a movement speed of 30'?
A: In one round, if a Knight already has an Echo manifested that is 30’ away, the Echo can move another 30’ further away on that turn. Then the Knight can swap places with it (costing 15’ of movement and a bonus action). The Knight can then move an additional 15’ – for a total of 75’ before using the Knight’s action or Action surge. The Echo will still disappear at the end of the round because it has moved more than 30’ away from the Knight.
Correct
This question might have already been asked, but would an echo still disappear if the creature that summons the echo does not technically sleep? For example, a Warforged's Sentry's Rest, since it doesn't render you unconscious. And would it work with any other creatures?
The echo vanishes when the user is incapacitated. It should therefore stay active during Sentry's Rest, and also during an Elf's Trance, as neither of them make the user unconscious (and therefore do not make them incapacitated).
Not quite. Because the "teleport" swaps the knight and the echo's position, the echo would be in the same space where the knight was when they used their action to "teleport." In that example, since the bonus action teleport was used before the knight used any of their movement (this is how you cover the most ground utilizing the echo) the echo would be 75' away from the knight and will be destroyed unless the knight can get themself back to within 30' of the echo before the end of their turn. This is why, although Echo Knights can cover some insane ground, they're a lot like the tabaxi in that they can only really do it every other round, and only if certain other variables fall into place.