"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,..."
Likewise it also doesn't say it's a creature so it could count as enemy. It's literally just an image RAW and an object if you consult the sage advise of jeremy crawford.
This FAQ pretty much assumes the Echo is an object based and on Jeremy Crawford’s comments. But as we know, this causes sone complications. However, I think there could be merit in exploring the RAW version, which indicates the Echo is just an “image”. The challenge here is that the “image” occupies space, though perhaps you could say it is by some magical force or otherwise. Either way, Echos seem to have some qualities of both images and objects.
If a Swashbuckler Echo Knight attacks a Kobold with a shortsword through their Echo and their Echo is 5ft away from the Kobold and there are no creatures within 5ft of the Echo other than the Kobold do you get sneak attack from the Swashbuckler Rakish Audacity feature?
If a Swashbuckler Echo Knight attacks a Kobold with a shortsword through their Echo and their Echo is 5ft away from the Kobold and there are no creatures within 5ft of the Echo other than the Kobold do you get sneak attack from the Swashbuckler Rakish Audacity feature?
Rakish Audacity?
RAW, no. The echo knight is supposed to be within 5 feet of the target, and Manifest Echo only states the attack can originate from the echo's space. It does not say the echo knight attacks from the echo's space as if they were there.
Okay, please check me to make sure I understand correctly:
Ignoring Action Surge and Haste: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." So you take the attack action and make (2) attacks using "Attack" for your action.
Echo Knight's feature reads:
3rd-level Echo Knight feature: You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The wording specifically states one additional melee attack, and Extra Attack makes it seem like Echo Knights can take (2) Weapon Attacks (Attack Action) +(1) Melee Attack (from the Echo's Position) on a single round of combat, so long as they have the constitution modifier for it. Is that correct?
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
The PHB stipulates the condition of from more than one class, but a Level 5 straight fighter would have it all within One Class, and specifically mentions the Fighter's version of Extra Attack.
If I am reading this correctly the included melee attack is a class feature (not a spell) added onto the fighter's attacks, but only melee and only from the Echo's position. I know that extra attacks and extra attack options are different. I know that extra attacks within the attack action don't stack when multiclassing, but a straight level 5 Echo Knight fighter looks like it has a feature that grants them an additional melee attack when choosing the attack action.
Okay, please check me to make sure I understand correctly:
Ignoring Action Surge and Haste: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." So you take the attack action and make (2) attacks using "Attack" for your action.
Echo Knight's feature reads:
3rd-level Echo Knight feature: You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The wording specifically states one additional melee attack, and Extra Attack makes it seem like Echo Knights can take (2) Weapon Attacks (Attack Action) +(1) Melee Attack (from the Echo's Position) on a single round of combat, so long as they have the constitution modifier for it. Is that correct?
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
The PHB stipulates the condition of from more than one class, but a Level 5 straight fighter would have it all within One Class, and specifically mentions the Fighter's version of Extra Attack.
If I am reading this correctly the included melee attack is a class feature (not a spell) added onto the fighter's attacks, but only melee and only from the Echo's position. I know that extra attacks and extra attack options are different. I know that extra attacks within the attack action don't stack when multiclassing, but a straight level 5 Echo Knight fighter looks like it has a feature that grants them an additional melee attack when choosing the attack action.
Weapon Attack + Weapon Attack + Melee Attack
If this is incorrect, what am I missing?
That's correct.
The part about gaining the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class is completely irrelevant not just because you don't get the additional attack from another class but also because the additional attack is not the same as the Extra Attack class feature to begin with.
You aren't missing anything. For a limited amount of uses per long rest the Echo Knight Fighter has one more melee attack than any other Fighter.
Okay, please check me to make sure I understand correctly:
Ignoring Action Surge and Haste: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." So you take the attack action and make (2) attacks using "Attack" for your action.
Echo Knight's feature reads:
3rd-level Echo Knight feature: You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The wording specifically states one additional melee attack, and Extra Attack makes it seem like Echo Knights can take (2) Weapon Attacks (Attack Action) +(1) Melee Attack (from the Echo's Position) on a single round of combat, so long as they have the constitution modifier for it. Is that correct?
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
The PHB stipulates the condition of from more than one class, but a Level 5 straight fighter would have it all within One Class, and specifically mentions the Fighter's version of Extra Attack.
If I am reading this correctly the included melee attack is a class feature (not a spell) added onto the fighter's attacks, but only melee and only from the Echo's position. I know that extra attacks and extra attack options are different. I know that extra attacks within the attack action don't stack when multiclassing, but a straight level 5 Echo Knight fighter looks like it has a feature that grants them an additional melee attack when choosing the attack action.
Weapon Attack + Weapon Attack + Melee Attack
If this is incorrect, what am I missing?
I believe you are correct in your interpretation. It's whenever you take the Attack action that you can use Unleash Incarnation for the one additional melee attack (limited resource based on your CON modifier per long rest). So, in theory, your Echo Knight could:
Attackx2 (level 5 fighter Extra Attack) + Attack (Unleashed Incarnation) for three attacks. Action Surge do the same for three more attacks and if Hasted, it's one more Attack action, but limited to one weapon attack, but would still qualify for Unleashed Incarnation! So that would be two attacks by being Hasted. So, in total, after starting with just Extra Attack for two attacks, you could go to EIGHT attacks in one turn at level 5!
Now this would take a ton of limited resources, a Haste spell or Speed potion and assumes a CON modifier of, at least, 16 with Unleashed Incarnation (which I think is not unreasonable for a fighter class), but if you were facing the Big Bad and needed a nova round, I think all of this is doable. I don't tend to nova round like that, but there are times when you really, really need the monster to die. This would do it! :)
Attackx2 (level 5 fighter Extra Attack) + Attack (Unleashed Incarnation) for three attacks. Action Surge do the same for three more attacks and if Hasted, it's one more Attack action, but limited to one weapon attack, but would still qualify for Unleashed Incarnation! So that would be two attacks by being Hasted. So, in total, after starting with just Extra Attack for two attacks, you could go to EIGHT attacks in one turn at level 5!
Now this would take a ton of limited resources, a Haste spell or Speed potion and assumes a CON modifier of, at least, 16 with Unleashed Incarnation (which I think is not unreasonable for a fighter class), but if you were facing the Big Bad and needed a nova round, I think all of this is doable. I don't tend to nova round like that, but there are times when you really, really need the monster to die. This would do it! :)
Yeah what got me curious about this was wondering about multiclass builds and making sure I understood stacking. I was wondering how well this would stack considering brutal critical, if you build a CON barbarian (specifically Ancestral Guardian) and added this, with action surge, reckless attack, and brutal critical, for something even crazier, the echo's melee could be beefed up with a few levels of Pally. The action economy goes nuts. (3 Attacks all at advantage (reckless) + brutal critical + Rage Damage + Divine Smite) X 2 (via action surge) OR since the attach from the echo is Melee, I bet most DM's would allow it to be a "Shove" attack. You could reduce the Cost of Reckless attack.
If that is stacking correctly, with Echo Knight-Pally-Barb you're talking Shepherd-Druid Pack Leader number of attacks but with way more damage. So exciting!!
I think your build is both off-topic and something not a lot of parties get to. It requires being at least 17th level, Tier 4, and most games don't even get deep into Tier 3.
Attackx2 (level 5 fighter Extra Attack) + Attack (Unleashed Incarnation) for three attacks. Action Surge do the same for three more attacks and if Hasted, it's one more Attack action, but limited to one weapon attack, but would still qualify for Unleashed Incarnation! So that would be two attacks by being Hasted. So, in total, after starting with just Extra Attack for two attacks, you could go to EIGHT attacks in one turn at level 5!
Now this would take a ton of limited resources, a Haste spell or Speed potion and assumes a CON modifier of, at least, 16 with Unleashed Incarnation (which I think is not unreasonable for a fighter class), but if you were facing the Big Bad and needed a nova round, I think all of this is doable. I don't tend to nova round like that, but there are times when you really, really need the monster to die. This would do it! :)
Yeah what got me curious about this was wondering about multiclass builds and making sure I understood stacking. I was wondering how well this would stack considering brutal critical,
Brutal Critical has a nearly negligible effect on DPR even with Elven Advantage, and without it, you'll almost never notice it.
if you build a CON barbarian (specifically Ancestral Guardian) and added this, with action surge, reckless attack, and brutal critical, for something even crazier, the echo's melee could be beefed up with a few levels of Pally. The action economy goes nuts. (3 Attacks all at advantage (reckless) + brutal critical + Rage Damage + Divine Smite) X 2 (via action surge)
Again, brutal critical is a nearly useless class feature. Reckless Attack is good. The rage damage is ok (you'll have so few rages per day it won't be a huge deal) and since the build you're proposing absolutely has to have CHA 13 STR 13 just to exist and you specified building for CON the DEX is going to be piss-poor, leading me to have serious doubts about the build's AC and hit accuracy.
OR since the attach from the echo is Melee, I bet most DM's would allow it to be a "Shove" attack. You could reduce the Cost of Reckless attack.
If that is stacking correctly, with Echo Knight-Pally-Barb you're talking Shepherd-Druid Pack Leader number of attacks but with way more damage. So exciting!!
Do tables regularly ban this build?
I doubt it, it sounds nearly entirely harmless relative to an Echo Knight base. If a DM is willing to allow an Echo Knight and its enormous rules headaches, allowing the user to multiclass with Barbarian and Paladin isn't going to break anything further.
The number of attacks made will be at most 4 per Attack action for at most 5 actions per day. It's just not concerning.
Say your PC echo knight is on a moving cart that is travelling at a quick pace, they summon their echo next to them on the cart. Does the echo keep pace with your PC as the cart moves forward or does it only occupy that space when its originally manifested and then gets left behind and likely disappear at the end of the turn as they exceed the 30 ft limit.
Great question. I don’t know if there is a RAW answer. But let’s think it through. The cart could just as easily be a ship, or train, or any moving platform.
If a Knight is standing on a ship, she moves with it because of gravity. If the Knight somehow flies or falls in the water, the ship would keep going and the Knight would no longer automatically be moved with it. I assume this would apply to any character, so nothing new here.
One option is if the DM rules the Echo is a version of the Knight from another timeline. In another timeline, the Knight would still probably move with the ship as long as she was on the deck, so one could say the Echo follows the same rules. So in this case, the Echo would probably follow the same rules as the Knight.
Alternate, if the DM rules the Echo is a translucent image, and has no mass, gravity would then probably not keep it attached to the deck. But it may also be worth noting that as our planet spins (assuming it is round), and we are all constantly in motion relative to the sun. So an Echo not affected by gravity or some relative force would be pretty impractical.
This leads me to another question. If an Echo was summoned in front of a moving ship, and the Echo occupies its space, what would happen when the ship collides with it? Reasonable speaking, I would probably rule that a colliding ship does at least one point of damage causing the Echo to disappear. Which one interestingly might imply a solution to the immovable Echo problem (shoving could cause an Echo to disappear), but back to that another time.
So that brings me to my last question, what would be the most fun and also practical? I’d probably rule that an Echo on the deck of the ship would probably stay with the ship. But a flying (or swimming) Echo would get left behind as the ship moves, just like a character.
Thought, counter arguments?
edit: how might Spiritual Weapon work on a ship?
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
No, we really don't.
The game rules aren't concerned with a realistic application of physics. Heck, the rules for calculating diagonal distance on a battle map are non-Euclidean. Case in point, the Pythagorean theorem (a²+b²=c²) does not exist. At least, not in a way any character can interact with in the aforementioned context.
Like, we could if we really wanted to. But that's a level of granularity that just...isn't fun; or even important. A sailing ship has a travel speed of 5 miles/hour, or 44 feet/round. How many flying familiars, or other summoned creatures, could that potentially leave behind? And, yes, I know an object can move faster when launched from a "moving" platform than a "stationary" one. But we don't concern ourselves with these matters. It's just piling on. If it was something we were supposed to care about, then the rules would address it.
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
No, we really don't.
The game rules aren't concerned with a realistic application of physics. Heck, the rules for calculating diagonal distance on a battle map are non-Euclidean. Case in point, the Pythagorean theorem (a²+b²=c²) does not exist. At least, not in a way any character can interact with in the aforementioned context.
Like, we could if we really wanted to. But that's a level of granularity that just...isn't fun; or even important. A sailing ship has a travel speed of 5 miles/hour, or 44 feet/round. How many flying familiars, or other summoned creatures, could that potentially leave behind? And, yes, I know an object can move faster when launched from a "moving" platform than a "stationary" one. But we don't concern ourselves with these matters. It's just piling on. If it was something we were supposed to care about, then the rules would address it.
Well, thanks for basically ignoring my question about flight.
And how does mass not matter if some people are arguing that you can use the Echo to "walk" through a dungeon to trigger all the trapz? If an Echo can't interact with other objects except through the EK creature's attack action, how is it supposed to trigger anything?
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
No, we really don't.
The game rules aren't concerned with a realistic application of physics. Heck, the rules for calculating diagonal distance on a battle map are non-Euclidean. Case in point, the Pythagorean theorem (a²+b²=c²) does not exist. At least, not in a way any character can interact with in the aforementioned context.
Like, we could if we really wanted to. But that's a level of granularity that just...isn't fun; or even important. A sailing ship has a travel speed of 5 miles/hour, or 44 feet/round. How many flying familiars, or other summoned creatures, could that potentially leave behind? And, yes, I know an object can move faster when launched from a "moving" platform than a "stationary" one. But we don't concern ourselves with these matters. It's just piling on. If it was something we were supposed to care about, then the rules would address it.
Well, thanks for basically ignoring my question about flight.
And how does mass not matter if some people are arguing that you can use the Echo to "walk" through a dungeon to trigger all the trapz? If an Echo can't interact with other objects except through the EK creature's attack action, how is it supposed to trigger anything?
I ignored your question because the answer is obvious. The echo knight summons their echo on their turn. It doesn't matter how fast the other creature is because they aren't moving when it isn't their turn. The echo knight can summon their echo anywhere within the prescribed range. And being restrained has no bearing on whether they can use Manifest Echo; as the condition does not deprive them of actions or bonus actions. And I'm not making any special interpretations of the rules as written. This is just walking you through the process.
And you just answered your own question. If the echo cannot interact with other objects, except through the echo knight's attack, then it cannot trigger anything. The specifics of each trap will tell you how they are triggered and what they affect. Some may allow an interaction, while others do not. Mass, as a concept, does not exist within the game. Weight exists, and weight is the force of gravity applied to an object, sometimes expressed as the acceleration of gravity multiplied by the mass of the object, but that does not mean mass exists as a game concept or statistic. It isn't meaningful.
Well, thanks for basically ignoring my question about flight.
And how does mass not matter if some people are arguing that you can use the Echo to "walk" through a dungeon to trigger all the trapz? If an Echo can't interact with other objects except through the EK creature's attack action, how is it supposed to trigger anything?
=
And you just answered your own question. If the echo cannot interact with other objects, except through the echo knight's attack, then it cannot trigger anything. The specifics of each trap will tell you how they are triggered and what they affect. Some may allow an interaction, while others do not. Mass, as a concept, does not exist within the game. Weight exists, and weight is the force of gravity applied to an object, sometimes expressed as the acceleration of gravity multiplied by the mass of the object, but that does not mean mass exists as a game concept or statistic. It isn't meaningful.
Okay, perhaps I should have used the word "weight" instead of "mass". So by your interpretation, the Echo cannot trigger any traps that require the application of weight, i.e. a pressure plate. It also cannot open or close anything. Nor is it a creature, and thus unable to set off any traps likely to trigger by a creature being in a particular space. IOW, it's not actually very useful for trap-finding on its own, even if the EK were to say, have taken a level or more in Rogue. If that's the case, why are so many people extolling the value of this subclass for "explore" aspect of dungeon delving? It seems either a lot of people singing the praises of the level 7 feature of the EK either don't understand the rules or other people are interpreting the abilities of the EK very differently than you are. This suggests to me that the RAW is not clear to begin with.
It seems either a lot of people singing the praises of the level 7 feature of the EK either don't understand the rules or other people are interpreting the abilities of the EK very differently than you are.
Yes, and that's not uncommon. Plenty of DMs are more liberal and allow for things the RAW doesn't. Heck, I do that. I let the barbarian's rage damage bonus apply to thrown weapons which use the Strength statistic, like the handaxe and javelin, because I think it makes sense to allow. I also have an arguably more liberal interpretation of what it means to make a saving throw to avoid damage.
For example, a creature must succeed in a Dexterity saving throw to take only half the damage from fireball. But objects automatically fail their all Dexterity saving throws. So, does this mean objects don't take damage or do they automatically take the full damage? And what constitutes an object? I think we've taken for granted that something in the game is either a creature or an object, but what about vehicles? Well, as far as the DMG is concerned, an object is "a discrete inanimate item." So, I don't think vehicles should count as objects. They're complex, with many parts; some of which are moving. A vehicle, like a ship, might have glass windows for the captain's cabin. And those windows might be objects, but the entire ship isn't. Still, does that now mean we have a third category: creature, object, and vehicle? Or do we lump vehicles in with creatures? They have stat blocks like creatures do, after all.
Don't think too hard on all of that; trying to come up with your own answers. My point in asking those rhetorical questions was simply to highlight how asking those questions can lead people to have different interpretations of the rules. I don't think of the echo as being a discrete object, and I think Jeremy Crawford is wrong to say so. The echo can make saving throws, and it uses the echo knight's statistics when doing so. Which makes zero sense when objects automatically fail both Strength and Dexterity saving throws. Plus, objects immune to any effect which require other saves. So, the echo must be an exception to that general rule. Which makes his tweet calling it an object odd because the feature doesn't do that. But that's why it's just a tweet and not official Sage Advice. Which, by the way, has not been updated since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was released a year and a half ago.
People are going to read the same thing and get different things out of it. We see it with literature all the time. Same thing with movies and music. So don't pay too much attention to what other people are doing. Do what's right by you and your table.
It seems either a lot of people singing the praises of the level 7 feature of the EK either don't understand the rules or other people are interpreting the abilities of the EK very differently than you are.
Yes, and that's not uncommon. Plenty of DMs are more liberal and allow for things the RAW doesn't. Heck, I do that. I let the barbarian's rage damage bonus apply to thrown weapons which use the Strength statistic, like the handaxe and javelin, because I think it makes sense to allow. I also have an arguably more liberal interpretation of what it means to make a saving throw to avoid damage.
For example, a creature must succeed in a Dexterity saving throw to take only half the damage from fireball. But objects automatically fail their all Dexterity saving throws. So, does this mean objects don't take damage or do they automatically take the full damage? And what constitutes an object? I think we've taken for granted that something in the game is either a creature or an object, but what about vehicles? Well, as far as the DMG is concerned, an object is "a discrete inanimate item." So, I don't think vehicles should count as objects. They're complex, with many parts; some of which are moving. A vehicle, like a ship, might have glass windows for the captain's cabin. And those windows might be objects, but the entire ship isn't. Still, does that now mean we have a third category: creature, object, and vehicle? Or do we lump vehicles in with creatures? They have stat blocks like creatures do, after all.
Those are useful questions to have. I understand that, from your perspective, you accept that a DM will have a lot of leeway for adjudicating things that are not RAW. My concerns are that newer DMs will have a bad experience with the Echo Knight and start dissuading players from using it due to how much ambiguity there is in the in-print, official subclass. I like the Echo Knight. It encourages a higher degree of tactical thinking than a lot of other melee-oriented subclasses (even moreso than a lot of Paladins). So I Want it to see more play. But a vaguely defined status on what an Echo IS and the lack of Sage Advice or other updates makes this a special challenge for newer DMs to have at the table. As a player, I would feel bad about playing an Echo Knight at the table of an amateur DM.
This FAQ pretty much assumes the Echo is an object based and on Jeremy Crawford’s comments. But as we know, this causes sone complications. However, I think there could be merit in exploring the RAW version, which indicates the Echo is just an “image”. The challenge here is that the “image” occupies space, though perhaps you could say it is by some magical force or otherwise. Either way, Echos seem to have some qualities of both images and objects.
Correct. Image or object, it does help with sneak attack.
If a Swashbuckler Echo Knight attacks a Kobold with a shortsword through their Echo and their Echo is 5ft away from the Kobold and there are no creatures within 5ft of the Echo other than the Kobold do you get sneak attack from the Swashbuckler Rakish Audacity feature?
Rakish Audacity?
RAW, no. The echo knight is supposed to be within 5 feet of the target, and Manifest Echo only states the attack can originate from the echo's space. It does not say the echo knight attacks from the echo's space as if they were there.
Okay, please check me to make sure I understand correctly:
Ignoring Action Surge and Haste: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
So you take the attack action and make (2) attacks using "Attack" for your action.
Echo Knight's feature reads:
3rd-level Echo Knight feature:
You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The wording specifically states one additional melee attack, and Extra Attack makes it seem like Echo Knights can take (2) Weapon Attacks (Attack Action) +(1) Melee Attack (from the Echo's Position) on a single round of combat, so long as they have the constitution modifier for it. Is that correct?
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
The PHB stipulates the condition of from more than one class, but a Level 5 straight fighter would have it all within One Class, and specifically mentions the Fighter's version of Extra Attack.
If I am reading this correctly the included melee attack is a class feature (not a spell) added onto the fighter's attacks, but only melee and only from the Echo's position. I know that extra attacks and extra attack options are different. I know that extra attacks within the attack action don't stack when multiclassing, but a straight level 5 Echo Knight fighter looks like it has a feature that grants them an additional melee attack when choosing the attack action.
Weapon Attack + Weapon Attack + Melee Attack
If this is incorrect, what am I missing?
Thanks for confirming!
I believe you are correct in your interpretation. It's whenever you take the Attack action that you can use Unleash Incarnation for the one additional melee attack (limited resource based on your CON modifier per long rest). So, in theory, your Echo Knight could:
Attackx2 (level 5 fighter Extra Attack) + Attack (Unleashed Incarnation) for three attacks. Action Surge do the same for three more attacks and if Hasted, it's one more Attack action, but limited to one weapon attack, but would still qualify for Unleashed Incarnation! So that would be two attacks by being Hasted. So, in total, after starting with just Extra Attack for two attacks, you could go to EIGHT attacks in one turn at level 5!
Now this would take a ton of limited resources, a Haste spell or Speed potion and assumes a CON modifier of, at least, 16 with Unleashed Incarnation (which I think is not unreasonable for a fighter class), but if you were facing the Big Bad and needed a nova round, I think all of this is doable. I don't tend to nova round like that, but there are times when you really, really need the monster to die. This would do it! :)
Yeah what got me curious about this was wondering about multiclass builds and making sure I understood stacking.
I was wondering how well this would stack considering brutal critical, if you build a CON barbarian (specifically Ancestral Guardian) and added this, with action surge, reckless attack, and brutal critical, for something even crazier, the echo's melee could be beefed up with a few levels of Pally. The action economy goes nuts. (3 Attacks all at advantage (reckless) + brutal critical + Rage Damage + Divine Smite) X 2 (via action surge)
OR since the attach from the echo is Melee, I bet most DM's would allow it to be a "Shove" attack. You could reduce the Cost of Reckless attack.
If that is stacking correctly, with Echo Knight-Pally-Barb you're talking Shepherd-Druid Pack Leader number of attacks but with way more damage. So exciting!!
Do tables regularly ban this build?
I think your build is both off-topic and something not a lot of parties get to. It requires being at least 17th level, Tier 4, and most games don't even get deep into Tier 3.
Brutal Critical has a nearly negligible effect on DPR even with Elven Advantage, and without it, you'll almost never notice it.
Again, brutal critical is a nearly useless class feature. Reckless Attack is good. The rage damage is ok (you'll have so few rages per day it won't be a huge deal) and since the build you're proposing absolutely has to have CHA 13 STR 13 just to exist and you specified building for CON the DEX is going to be piss-poor, leading me to have serious doubts about the build's AC and hit accuracy.
I doubt it, it sounds nearly entirely harmless relative to an Echo Knight base. If a DM is willing to allow an Echo Knight and its enormous rules headaches, allowing the user to multiclass with Barbarian and Paladin isn't going to break anything further.
The number of attacks made will be at most 4 per Attack action for at most 5 actions per day. It's just not concerning.
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
No, we really don't.
The game rules aren't concerned with a realistic application of physics. Heck, the rules for calculating diagonal distance on a battle map are non-Euclidean. Case in point, the Pythagorean theorem (a²+b²=c²) does not exist. At least, not in a way any character can interact with in the aforementioned context.
Like, we could if we really wanted to. But that's a level of granularity that just...isn't fun; or even important. A sailing ship has a travel speed of 5 miles/hour, or 44 feet/round. How many flying familiars, or other summoned creatures, could that potentially leave behind? And, yes, I know an object can move faster when launched from a "moving" platform than a "stationary" one. But we don't concern ourselves with these matters. It's just piling on. If it was something we were supposed to care about, then the rules would address it.
Well, thanks for basically ignoring my question about flight.
And how does mass not matter if some people are arguing that you can use the Echo to "walk" through a dungeon to trigger all the trapz? If an Echo can't interact with other objects except through the EK creature's attack action, how is it supposed to trigger anything?
I ignored your question because the answer is obvious. The echo knight summons their echo on their turn. It doesn't matter how fast the other creature is because they aren't moving when it isn't their turn. The echo knight can summon their echo anywhere within the prescribed range. And being restrained has no bearing on whether they can use Manifest Echo; as the condition does not deprive them of actions or bonus actions. And I'm not making any special interpretations of the rules as written. This is just walking you through the process.
And you just answered your own question. If the echo cannot interact with other objects, except through the echo knight's attack, then it cannot trigger anything. The specifics of each trap will tell you how they are triggered and what they affect. Some may allow an interaction, while others do not. Mass, as a concept, does not exist within the game. Weight exists, and weight is the force of gravity applied to an object, sometimes expressed as the acceleration of gravity multiplied by the mass of the object, but that does not mean mass exists as a game concept or statistic. It isn't meaningful.
Okay, perhaps I should have used the word "weight" instead of "mass". So by your interpretation, the Echo cannot trigger any traps that require the application of weight, i.e. a pressure plate. It also cannot open or close anything. Nor is it a creature, and thus unable to set off any traps likely to trigger by a creature being in a particular space. IOW, it's not actually very useful for trap-finding on its own, even if the EK were to say, have taken a level or more in Rogue. If that's the case, why are so many people extolling the value of this subclass for "explore" aspect of dungeon delving? It seems either a lot of people singing the praises of the level 7 feature of the EK either don't understand the rules or other people are interpreting the abilities of the EK very differently than you are. This suggests to me that the RAW is not clear to begin with.
Yes, and that's not uncommon. Plenty of DMs are more liberal and allow for things the RAW doesn't. Heck, I do that. I let the barbarian's rage damage bonus apply to thrown weapons which use the Strength statistic, like the handaxe and javelin, because I think it makes sense to allow. I also have an arguably more liberal interpretation of what it means to make a saving throw to avoid damage.
For example, a creature must succeed in a Dexterity saving throw to take only half the damage from fireball. But objects automatically fail their all Dexterity saving throws. So, does this mean objects don't take damage or do they automatically take the full damage? And what constitutes an object? I think we've taken for granted that something in the game is either a creature or an object, but what about vehicles? Well, as far as the DMG is concerned, an object is "a discrete inanimate item." So, I don't think vehicles should count as objects. They're complex, with many parts; some of which are moving. A vehicle, like a ship, might have glass windows for the captain's cabin. And those windows might be objects, but the entire ship isn't. Still, does that now mean we have a third category: creature, object, and vehicle? Or do we lump vehicles in with creatures? They have stat blocks like creatures do, after all.
Don't think too hard on all of that; trying to come up with your own answers. My point in asking those rhetorical questions was simply to highlight how asking those questions can lead people to have different interpretations of the rules. I don't think of the echo as being a discrete object, and I think Jeremy Crawford is wrong to say so. The echo can make saving throws, and it uses the echo knight's statistics when doing so. Which makes zero sense when objects automatically fail both Strength and Dexterity saving throws. Plus, objects immune to any effect which require other saves. So, the echo must be an exception to that general rule. Which makes his tweet calling it an object odd because the feature doesn't do that. But that's why it's just a tweet and not official Sage Advice. Which, by the way, has not been updated since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was released a year and a half ago.
People are going to read the same thing and get different things out of it. We see it with literature all the time. Same thing with movies and music. So don't pay too much attention to what other people are doing. Do what's right by you and your table.
Those are useful questions to have. I understand that, from your perspective, you accept that a DM will have a lot of leeway for adjudicating things that are not RAW. My concerns are that newer DMs will have a bad experience with the Echo Knight and start dissuading players from using it due to how much ambiguity there is in the in-print, official subclass. I like the Echo Knight. It encourages a higher degree of tactical thinking than a lot of other melee-oriented subclasses (even moreso than a lot of Paladins). So I Want it to see more play. But a vaguely defined status on what an Echo IS and the lack of Sage Advice or other updates makes this a special challenge for newer DMs to have at the table. As a player, I would feel bad about playing an Echo Knight at the table of an amateur DM.