In addition to Warcaster, would it be possible to cast a spell through the Echo if you multiclassed with the Bladesinger wizard (Tasha's version) whose Extra Attack allows them to replace one attack with a cantrip? That is to say, you would be casting the cantrip as part of the Attack action rather than the Cast a Spell action.
Sorry if this has been covered before, but unless I missed it I did not see this interaction addressed in the first post
I would say no but it is a bit unclear. You could attack with the echo and then cast a cantrip from your actual character though.
In addition to Warcaster, would it be possible to cast a spell through the Echo if you multiclassed with the Bladesinger wizard (Tasha's version) whose Extra Attack allows them to replace one attack with a cantrip? That is to say, you would be casting the cantrip as part of the Attack action rather than the Cast a Spell action.
Sorry if this has been covered before, but unless I missed it I did not see this interaction addressed in the first post
I would say no but it is a bit unclear. You could attack with the echo and then cast a cantrip from your actual character though.
Id be inclined to say yes, myself. Manifest Echo says
When you take the Attack action on your turn, any attack you make with that action can originate from your space or the echo’s space. You make this choice for each attack.
The bladesinger's Extra Attack states
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
So, for example, if I was playing such a multiclass and took the Attack action, made one weapon attack as part of that action and then cast Firebolt, making a spell attack, as the other part of that action. I am casting a cantrip in place of an attack, but it is still part of the Attack action that I am making the associate spell attack. Now obviously it would not work with cantrips that require a saving throw instead of an attack roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That might work with something like fire bolt, but not something like acid splash. And I'm inclined to say "no" to anything with a point of origin of "self" as well.
Half your own rules are inconsistent within themselves lol.
Of course they are, D&D can't be bothered to hire good Quality Control editors. No wonder so much about the Echo confuses people.
Respectfully, I think that's your problem. WotC has, intentionally, not explicitly given a rule for every edge-case scenario. The practice of doing otherwise has a history of bogging down the game, or even grinding it to a halt in the event the rules don't cover a situation. Believe it or not, the maxim of "rulings, not rules" actually takes a cue from M:TG. A thing only does what it says, and that's enough ≈95% of the time. But unlike M:TG, the rules still need to be flexible enough to account for human creativity.
The point is to give enough rules to be usable while still leaving enough slack to just play without arguing over anything. The DM is expected to improvise. That's only a weakness if you want everyone to play the exact same way.
I don't see contradictory rules, and I'm someone who actually thinks some of Crawford's rulings don't make sense. But they're just his rulings. Nobody here, or elsewhere, is bound by them. We make the most fun decisions we can and go from there. And if you don't know how to use a given feature, then ask around for advice. That's kind of why we're here.
The rules are OBVIOUSLY unclear. There would be no need for 42 pages of questions and explanations if they had been written clearly. Do we see this kind of thread for any other Fighter subclass? That's a rhetorical question. Trying to cover up for WotC's lack of editing does not change the fact that this should not have been published without further editing.
A DM has enough to do with managing encounter's, prepping stat blocks, writing plot points, generating NPCs, etc. etc. to have to interpret a shoddily-written subclass. A lot of DMs are not on Reddit or DDB scrolling through page after page of stuff to understand the minutiae of every single subclass that players pick. Their time is valuable. Therefore, it behooves WotC to help them out by writing clear rules when they can. Of course they can't cover every edge case, but if you have 42 pages of questions and bunch of responses to those questions is just "Maybe" then the RAW is already too ambiguous.
Half your own rules are inconsistent within themselves lol.
Of course they are, D&D can't be bothered to hire good Quality Control editors. No wonder so much about the Echo confuses people.
Respectfully, I think that's your problem. WotC has, intentionally, not explicitly given a rule for every edge-case scenario. The practice of doing otherwise has a history of bogging down the game, or even grinding it to a halt in the event the rules don't cover a situation. Believe it or not, the maxim of "rulings, not rules" actually takes a cue from M:TG. A thing only does what it says, and that's enough ≈95% of the time. But unlike M:TG, the rules still need to be flexible enough to account for human creativity.
The point is to give enough rules to be usable while still leaving enough slack to just play without arguing over anything. The DM is expected to improvise. That's only a weakness if you want everyone to play the exact same way.
I don't see contradictory rules, and I'm someone who actually thinks some of Crawford's rulings don't make sense. But they're just his rulings. Nobody here, or elsewhere, is bound by them. We make the most fun decisions we can and go from there. And if you don't know how to use a given feature, then ask around for advice. That's kind of why we're here.
The rules are OBVIOUSLY unclear. There would be no need for 42 pages of questions and explanations if they had been written clearly. Do we see this kind of thread for any other Fighter subclass? That's a rhetorical question. Trying to cover up for WotC's lack of editing does not change the fact that this should not have been published without further editing.
A DM has enough to do with managing encounter's, prepping stat blocks, writing plot points, generating NPCs, etc. etc. to have to interpret a shoddily-written subclass. A lot of DMs are not on Reddit or DDB scrolling through page after page of stuff to understand the minutiae of every single subclass that players pick. Their time is valuable. Therefore, it behooves WotC to help them out by writing clear rules when they can. Of course they can't cover every edge case, but if you have 42 pages of questions and bunch of responses to those questions is just "Maybe" then the RAW is already too ambiguous.
The beautiful thing about this game is nobody actually needs to be in any of those spaces to play the game. The steps to running anything are as follows:
Ask the player what the text says, verbatim.
Interpret that text, as it applies to the current situation.
Optional: Make it up, which is something the DMG explicitly reminds can be done on page four.
That's it. This is an unofficial Q&A because people like to discuss things which interest them. None of this is necessary. It's literally all gratuity.
When a spell or a feature does not specify a creature or object and just says something like "When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack" can target be the Echo ?
When a spell or a feature does not specify a creature or object and just says something like "When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack" can target be the Echo ?
First off, thank you for assembling this collection of information!
There is a player running an Echo Knight in my Curse of Strahd campaign. He raised it to me in advance of the campaign and while I had questions (fewer now), I was inclined to let a good player run it for the fun factor. He has done a great job emphasizing the elements of cool it represents. I could see less scrupulous players using it as a means of confounding and being a game-breaker type but this information helps prevent that.
Cheers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Halsen - Human Monk - Winter Splendor Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Barty's Blade Bizarre Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Betrayal at Devilsfall Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Barty's "The Hidden War" (Doom Portals Part 4A) Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter -Barty's "The Whispered Word (Doom Portals Part 5) Garu - Tabaxi Paladin - Barty's "Beyond Twilight" (Rikirta Part 3)
Regarding the echo and opportunity attacks with warcaster, are you casting the spell from your location or are you treating the spell as originating from the echos location as the trigger says you make an attack "as if in the echos space" but warcaster says you can cast instead of making an opportunity attack.
They aren't asking about attacks, they're asking about spells.
War Caster lets you cast a spell (with a casting time of 1 action that affects only one target) when making an opportunity attack, rather than make an attack. Making an opportunity attack, as if the fighter were in the echos space, is not the same as casting a spell.
These are two exceptions to the general rule, and there's no guidance on how they should interact.
Ask your DM. Some might allow the spell to originate from the echo's space. Some won't. Neither is wrong.
It seems to be widely accepted that the echo is not a creature, but I disagree - I feel that a copy of a creature that isn't explicitly described in the rules text as either an object or an illusion should be treated as a creature in 99% of scenarios, regardless of some throwaway tweets JC made 3 years ago about it being an object that never became official rulings or errata.
This line of rules text in Manifest Echo seems to back up my train of thought here:
"If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw bonus for the roll."
Objects explicitly cannot make a saving throw in any situation according to the rules of the PHB; they automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws and cannot be subjected to effects that force any other type of saving throw. Why would this line be there if we weren't supposed to treat the echo as a creature, or at least something close enough to a creature that it couldn't be considered an object? I think the several pages of arguments that the echo should be immune to effects that only target creatures do not make any sense because of this.
It seems to be widely accepted that the echo is not a creature, but I disagree - I feel that a copy of a creature that isn't explicitly described in the rules text as either an object or an illusion should be treated as a creature in 99% of scenarios, regardless of some throwaway tweets JC made 3 years ago about it being an object that never became official rulings or errata.
This line of rules text in Manifest Echo seems to back up my train of thought here:
"If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw bonus for the roll."
Objects explicitly cannot make a saving throw in any situation according to the rules of the PHB; they automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws and cannot be subjected to effects that force any other type of saving throw. Why would this line be there if we weren't supposed to treat the echo as a creature, or at least something close enough to a creature that it couldn't be considered an object? I think the several pages of arguments that the echo should be immune to effects that only target creatures do not make any sense because of this.
General rules are superseded by more specific ones. If there's a rule saying x object can make y saving throw, then x object can make y saving throw.
Why would this line be there if we weren't supposed to treat the echo as a creature, or at least something close enough to a creature that it couldn't be considered an object?
Echo must make saving throws to avoid interaction with something which could cause it harm, not specified as an effect which can only affect a creature. As Jounichi pointed out, there is specificity surrounding the Echo's interaction with the game.
It seems to be widely accepted that the echo is not a creature, but I disagree - I feel that a copy of a creature that isn't explicitly described in the rules text as either an object or an illusion should be treated as a creature in 99% of scenarios, regardless of some throwaway tweets JC made 3 years ago about it being an object that never became official rulings or errata.
Yes, Echos could be treated as creatures!
Yes, the rules aren't as clear as they could be, so all we do have to go on are things like the description and tweets. You could rules lawyer it to death, but I think the general interpretation is that they are not considered creatures.
That said, there is nothing stopping anyone (except your DM if you aren't one) from interpreting Echos to be creatures. But let me ask what else changes besides spell interactions? If Echo are creatures, they can now flank. Boy, that would be awesome. What else would change?
I pity any DM that allows this into his campaign....44 pages and counting...
44 pages, but most of it is people asking the same questions or a lot of back-and-forth debates that end in the same conclusion. The whole thread can be summed up in the first post, as is the intention with an FAQ. The wording on some of the class features could definitely be more clear, but overall the class is only going to be a nightmare for a DM if they have a player that's going to nitpick every word to try to constantly break the game and get away with things -- and in my opinion that becomes the fault of the player, because you could do that with any class, spell, or race if you're an ass about it.
Almost a year into playing an Echo Knight and I've only once had a moment with my DM of 'huh, do you think it would work like this?'. We thought about it, she made a house ruling on it, and we continue on. It doesn't need to be messy and complicated.
I would say no but it is a bit unclear. You could attack with the echo and then cast a cantrip from your actual character though.
Id be inclined to say yes, myself. Manifest Echo says
The bladesinger's Extra Attack states
So, for example, if I was playing such a multiclass and took the Attack action, made one weapon attack as part of that action and then cast Firebolt, making a spell attack, as the other part of that action. I am casting a cantrip in place of an attack, but it is still part of the Attack action that I am making the associate spell attack. Now obviously it would not work with cantrips that require a saving throw instead of an attack roll.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That might work with something like fire bolt, but not something like acid splash. And I'm inclined to say "no" to anything with a point of origin of "self" as well.
The rules are OBVIOUSLY unclear. There would be no need for 42 pages of questions and explanations if they had been written clearly. Do we see this kind of thread for any other Fighter subclass? That's a rhetorical question. Trying to cover up for WotC's lack of editing does not change the fact that this should not have been published without further editing.
A DM has enough to do with managing encounter's, prepping stat blocks, writing plot points, generating NPCs, etc. etc. to have to interpret a shoddily-written subclass. A lot of DMs are not on Reddit or DDB scrolling through page after page of stuff to understand the minutiae of every single subclass that players pick. Their time is valuable. Therefore, it behooves WotC to help them out by writing clear rules when they can. Of course they can't cover every edge case, but if you have 42 pages of questions and bunch of responses to those questions is just "Maybe" then the RAW is already too ambiguous.
The beautiful thing about this game is nobody actually needs to be in any of those spaces to play the game. The steps to running anything are as follows:
That's it. This is an unofficial Q&A because people like to discuss things which interest them. None of this is necessary. It's literally all gratuity.
When a spell or a feature does not specify a creature or object and just says something like "When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack" can target be the Echo ?
If that's all it says, then yes.
wow that was a fast reply. Thank you so much much appreciated.
First off, thank you for assembling this collection of information!
There is a player running an Echo Knight in my Curse of Strahd campaign. He raised it to me in advance of the campaign and while I had questions (fewer now), I was inclined to let a good player run it for the fun factor. He has done a great job emphasizing the elements of cool it represents. I could see less scrupulous players using it as a means of confounding and being a game-breaker type but this information helps prevent that.
Cheers.
Halsen - Human Monk - Winter Splendor
Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Barty's Blade Bizarre
Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Betrayal at Devilsfall
Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Barty's "The Hidden War" (Doom Portals Part 4A)
Aradurk - Half-Orc Fighter - Barty's "The Whispered Word (Doom Portals Part 5)
Garu - Tabaxi Paladin - Barty's "Beyond Twilight" (Rikirta Part 3)
Regarding the echo and opportunity attacks with warcaster, are you casting the spell from your location or are you treating the spell as originating from the echos location as the trigger says you make an attack "as if in the echos space" but warcaster says you can cast instead of making an opportunity attack.
if the OA is caused by something moving away from the echo's space, then the attack would come from the echo's space
They aren't asking about attacks, they're asking about spells.
War Caster lets you cast a spell (with a casting time of 1 action that affects only one target) when making an opportunity attack, rather than make an attack. Making an opportunity attack, as if the fighter were in the echos space, is not the same as casting a spell.
These are two exceptions to the general rule, and there's no guidance on how they should interact.
Ask your DM. Some might allow the spell to originate from the echo's space. Some won't. Neither is wrong.
It seems to be widely accepted that the echo is not a creature, but I disagree - I feel that a copy of a creature that isn't explicitly described in the rules text as either an object or an illusion should be treated as a creature in 99% of scenarios, regardless of some throwaway tweets JC made 3 years ago about it being an object that never became official rulings or errata.
This line of rules text in Manifest Echo seems to back up my train of thought here:
"If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw bonus for the roll."
Objects explicitly cannot make a saving throw in any situation according to the rules of the PHB; they automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws and cannot be subjected to effects that force any other type of saving throw. Why would this line be there if we weren't supposed to treat the echo as a creature, or at least something close enough to a creature that it couldn't be considered an object? I think the several pages of arguments that the echo should be immune to effects that only target creatures do not make any sense because of this.
General rules are superseded by more specific ones. If there's a rule saying x object can make y saving throw, then x object can make y saving throw.
Echo must make saving throws to avoid interaction with something which could cause it harm, not specified as an effect which can only affect a creature. As Jounichi pointed out, there is specificity surrounding the Echo's interaction with the game.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Yes, Echos could be treated as creatures!
Yes, the rules aren't as clear as they could be, so all we do have to go on are things like the description and tweets. You could rules lawyer it to death, but I think the general interpretation is that they are not considered creatures.
That said, there is nothing stopping anyone (except your DM if you aren't one) from interpreting Echos to be creatures. But let me ask what else changes besides spell interactions? If Echo are creatures, they can now flank. Boy, that would be awesome. What else would change?
They would interact with the game under the same rulings as a creature does RaW. That part is self-evident, lol.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
I pity any DM that allows this into his campaign....44 pages and counting...
The Echos aren't really that confusing though the rules for the class certainly could have been written with more clarity.
You want weirdness, take a look at the invisibility spell. (You can't, it's invisible! HAH! )Now there is a mess to end all messes.
44 pages, but most of it is people asking the same questions or a lot of back-and-forth debates that end in the same conclusion. The whole thread can be summed up in the first post, as is the intention with an FAQ. The wording on some of the class features could definitely be more clear, but overall the class is only going to be a nightmare for a DM if they have a player that's going to nitpick every word to try to constantly break the game and get away with things -- and in my opinion that becomes the fault of the player, because you could do that with any class, spell, or race if you're an ass about it.
Almost a year into playing an Echo Knight and I've only once had a moment with my DM of 'huh, do you think it would work like this?'. We thought about it, she made a house ruling on it, and we continue on. It doesn't need to be messy and complicated.