Flanking on Squares. When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy’s space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy.
The Echo is not a creature so it can neither give nor receive advantage by flanking RAW.
how bout using it as a one man bridge? a 20 foot gap? jump as far as you can, manifest it and teleport to it. voila.
Manifesting it in freefall would be problematic since it is one bonus round to manifest and a separate bonus action, which you do not have because of the one bonus per round limit, to teleport. The better question is whether it has to move conventional (i.e. walk places) or whether you can literally move it anywhere in range.
The Echo is an object you can move 30 feet, even into the air, per Crawford. Jump on it's back and ride it across the gap. Or, if you're like some that don't agree that should be possible, move it across the gap with it's movement and then teleport swap to it.
The main problem with the free fall idea is that you cannot teleport to the Echo. You swap places with it, in which case you would still be falling. In free fall, you could summon it 15' below you, have it start moving downward at 30'/rnd, and attempt to grab on or land on it when you catch up to it, if your DM allows.
I also would like to point out something that a lot of people seem to overlook or simply misunderstand. The Echo is NOT an object per RAW. RAW states it is a "magical, translucent, gray image of you... is the same size as you, and it occupies its space," and never once uses the word "object." Jeremy Crawford stated on twitter that it is an Object, which I'm not saying I disagree with, but that makes it firmly RAI, and not RAW. As of right now, it's not even in the SAC. Whether or not you take Crawford's Twitter replies as D&D Law, that doesn't change what is written in the book. (Until it does, with an errata.) I really wish they would put some work into better writing this extremely fun, but problematically written class sooner rather than later.
An image is not an object. Objects have substance and can be interacted with. Images are insubstantial and can be passed through. Obvious exceptions are spells like Phantasmal Steed that has specific wording that allows you to interact with it. The vast majority (but not all) of images and illusions cannot be physically interacted with and do not occupy their space.
OK, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, the Echo is an object. I'm not saying that it isn't. That is an agreed upon fact based on Crawford's tweet. However, in the printed, written text it is referred to as an image that occupies its space. You're assigning the Intent to the written word. Which, I agree, is the way it's meant to be played. But the text never implicitly states it is an object. If it is not written, it is not RAW. Phantom Steed creates an illusion that you can ride, but it also defines it as a "quasi-real, horselike creature" and points to a creature stat block. Per RAW, it is an Illusion that is also a creature. Manifest Echo makes no such distinction.
Crawford's tweets even say in certain instances that there was an intention of a certain mechanic that isn't in the book. (See: Echo Avatar) You can say all day that the Echo is intended to be an object, and I'm right there with you, but saying it's Rules As Written is incorrect. It may be a semantic issue, but that's really all that RAW vs RAI is.
No weapon’s description uses the word “object.” Are we to conclude then that weapons aren’t objects?
The game is written in English and relies on an understanding of what words mean. Everyone knows what an object is. Does it have a physical existence? Congratulations, it’s an object. D&D more specifically limits objects to “not creatures,” but it never has to specify that something is an object because that’s the default presumption.
No weapon’s description uses the word “object.” Are we to conclude then that weapons aren’t objects?
The game is written in English and relies on an understanding of what words mean. Everyone knows what an object is. Does it have a physical existence? Congratulations, it’s an object. D&D more specifically limits objects to “not creatures,” but it never has to specify that something is an object because that’s the default presumption.
I agree completely on relying on the meanings of words. So when the Echo is described as an image, one would logically expect it to behave the way an image does within the established rules of 5E: insubstantial, not occupying space, non-interactive. But then they describe it as having physical qualities an image doesn't have; occupying space, AC, HP. So your argument of relying on an understanding of the words is moot because the text breaks that convention. There are also plenty of things that have "physical existence" that are not objects. Creatures, Phantom Steed, Illusory Dragon, Guardian of Faith, for examples.
The reason this is important is because the mechanics of the Echo Knight rely heavily on the Echo being an object (which it is). They should have chosen a word other than "image" to convey that. Ask someone that doesn't follow Crawford or read forums what an Echo is and they'll tell you it's an image. I've had to argue and provide links to players and DMs to prove to them it's intended to be an object. I've been playing one since the book released and I still have to explain to my DM and other players how it can do what it does when it is a "translucent, grey image." Back around to my original point, RAI = Object, RAW = Image with physical properties. Call it what you will, it's still written poorly. If what it is was so obvious everyone presumed that it was an object, it wouldn't have to be the first question on a FAQ.
No weapon’s description uses the word “object.” Are we to conclude then that weapons aren’t objects?
The game is written in English and relies on an understanding of what words mean. Everyone knows what an object is. Does it have a physical existence? Congratulations, it’s an object. D&D more specifically limits objects to “not creatures,” but it never has to specify that something is an object because that’s the default presumption.
I agree completely on relying on the meanings of words. So when the Echo is described as an image, one would logically expect it to behave the way an image does within the established rules of 5E: insubstantial, not occupying space, non-interactive. But then they describe it as having physical qualities an image doesn't have; occupying space, AC, HP. So your argument of relying on an understanding of the words is moot because the text breaks that convention. There are also plenty of things that have "physical existence" that are not objects. Creatures, Phantom Steed, Illusory Dragon, Guardian of Faith, for examples.
As established, D&D specifically limits objects to "not creatures." I literally said that. Beyond that, images are objects. Illusory Dragon is an object. Guardian of Faith is an object. Phantom Steed specifies that it's a creature, so there's no ambiguity there.
Again, all of this is extremely straightforward if you know what "object" means.
But more importantly, all that matters is that it's not a creature, as Sposta points out.
Interesting side note related to echo related combat. The echo is not a creature... so if we follow this logic, does a Fireball spell not effect it at all? As Fireball states "That each creature within a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity Saving throw. A Target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one." How would you guys rule this, especially based on the previous Flanking argumentations?
With a RAW reading - yes - Fireball would not damage the Echo with the blast because it is not a creature. That said - Fireball does ignite flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried - and as has been discussed at length - the Echo can be considered an object - so it would likely be ignited. I'm not entirely sure what the rules are - if any - about being ignited - but it will probably end up with taking fire damage at the start of their turn - so the Echo would probably die at the start of the Fighters turn.
Given that the attack action can come from either the fighter or echo, and the echo can make its own attack a number of times based on the con modifier, I’d say that defending against the echo is just as important as the fighter.
Yeah, this Echo thing is weird... I would almost rule that it will give you the Flanking Bonus as it can be seen as threatening. I would naturally have agreed with @Davedamon until I read the following
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.
When a creature that you can see within 5 feet of your echo moves at least 5 feet away from it, you can use your reaction to make an opportunity attack against that creature as if you were in the echo’s space.
Which implies that the Echo is a reasonable Threat to the target it's next to. Unlike spells like Silent Image which just creates an image that can't harm a creature directly, this Echo can.
Basically I believe it is not intended to give you a flanking bonus, as a DM, I would probably overrule that as, realistically that creature would be technically threatened from multiple sides.
By RAW, an Echo is not a creature, and thus doesn't provide flanking. However, DMs can do whatever they would like at their table, and an argument can easily be made that the Echo does "threaten". I think the real question for DMs if what else this ruling might impact. Does a "spiritual weapon" spell provide flanking as well? Animated objects?
But if you don't want to 'rules lawyer', then I would say that in combat there is certainly more of an advantage to having an Echo on the opposite side of an enemy then none at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So you cant flank with the echo, but can the echo gain advantage if the target is flanked by a different creature/ally?
Same argument:
Flanking on Squares. When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy’s space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy.
The Echo is not a creature so it can neither give nor receive advantage by flanking RAW.
The Echo is an object you can move 30 feet, even into the air, per Crawford. Jump on it's back and ride it across the gap. Or, if you're like some that don't agree that should be possible, move it across the gap with it's movement and then teleport swap to it.
The main problem with the free fall idea is that you cannot teleport to the Echo. You swap places with it, in which case you would still be falling. In free fall, you could summon it 15' below you, have it start moving downward at 30'/rnd, and attempt to grab on or land on it when you catch up to it, if your DM allows.
I also would like to point out something that a lot of people seem to overlook or simply misunderstand. The Echo is NOT an object per RAW. RAW states it is a "magical, translucent, gray image of you... is the same size as you, and it occupies its space," and never once uses the word "object." Jeremy Crawford stated on twitter that it is an Object, which I'm not saying I disagree with, but that makes it firmly RAI, and not RAW. As of right now, it's not even in the SAC. Whether or not you take Crawford's Twitter replies as D&D Law, that doesn't change what is written in the book. (Until it does, with an errata.) I really wish they would put some work into better writing this extremely fun, but problematically written class sooner rather than later.
It is an image. An image is an object.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
An image is not an object. Objects have substance and can be interacted with. Images are insubstantial and can be passed through. Obvious exceptions are spells like Phantasmal Steed that has specific wording that allows you to interact with it. The vast majority (but not all) of images and illusions cannot be physically interacted with and do not occupy their space.
This image does occupy it's space and can be attacked and damaged. It is an object.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
OK, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, the Echo is an object. I'm not saying that it isn't. That is an agreed upon fact based on Crawford's tweet. However, in the printed, written text it is referred to as an image that occupies its space. You're assigning the Intent to the written word. Which, I agree, is the way it's meant to be played. But the text never implicitly states it is an object. If it is not written, it is not RAW. Phantom Steed creates an illusion that you can ride, but it also defines it as a "quasi-real, horselike creature" and points to a creature stat block. Per RAW, it is an Illusion that is also a creature. Manifest Echo makes no such distinction.
Crawford's tweets even say in certain instances that there was an intention of a certain mechanic that isn't in the book. (See: Echo Avatar) You can say all day that the Echo is intended to be an object, and I'm right there with you, but saying it's Rules As Written is incorrect. It may be a semantic issue, but that's really all that RAW vs RAI is.
No weapon’s description uses the word “object.” Are we to conclude then that weapons aren’t objects?
The game is written in English and relies on an understanding of what words mean. Everyone knows what an object is. Does it have a physical existence? Congratulations, it’s an object. D&D more specifically limits objects to “not creatures,” but it never has to specify that something is an object because that’s the default presumption.
Thank you SagaTympana.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No, we are not to conclude that at all. Swords, and therefore 'weapons', are listed under the examples of objects in the DMG. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#Objects
I agree completely on relying on the meanings of words. So when the Echo is described as an image, one would logically expect it to behave the way an image does within the established rules of 5E: insubstantial, not occupying space, non-interactive. But then they describe it as having physical qualities an image doesn't have; occupying space, AC, HP. So your argument of relying on an understanding of the words is moot because the text breaks that convention. There are also plenty of things that have "physical existence" that are not objects. Creatures, Phantom Steed, Illusory Dragon, Guardian of Faith, for examples.
The reason this is important is because the mechanics of the Echo Knight rely heavily on the Echo being an object (which it is). They should have chosen a word other than "image" to convey that. Ask someone that doesn't follow Crawford or read forums what an Echo is and they'll tell you it's an image. I've had to argue and provide links to players and DMs to prove to them it's intended to be an object. I've been playing one since the book released and I still have to explain to my DM and other players how it can do what it does when it is a "translucent, grey image." Back around to my original point, RAI = Object, RAW = Image with physical properties. Call it what you will, it's still written poorly. If what it is was so obvious everyone presumed that it was an object, it wouldn't have to be the first question on a FAQ.
Image or object is irrelevant. The Echo is not a creature. Therefore no flanking. That is the only part that matters.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As established, D&D specifically limits objects to "not creatures." I literally said that. Beyond that, images are objects. Illusory Dragon is an object. Guardian of Faith is an object. Phantom Steed specifies that it's a creature, so there's no ambiguity there.
Again, all of this is extremely straightforward if you know what "object" means.
But more importantly, all that matters is that it's not a creature, as Sposta points out.
Interesting side note related to echo related combat. The echo is not a creature... so if we follow this logic, does a Fireball spell not effect it at all? As Fireball states "That each creature within a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity Saving throw. A Target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one." How would you guys rule this, especially based on the previous Flanking argumentations?
With a RAW reading - yes - Fireball would not damage the Echo with the blast because it is not a creature. That said - Fireball does ignite flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried - and as has been discussed at length - the Echo can be considered an object - so it would likely be ignited. I'm not entirely sure what the rules are - if any - about being ignited - but it will probably end up with taking fire damage at the start of their turn - so the Echo would probably die at the start of the Fighters turn.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I think there is an argument here for that. In that case I would just have my echo knight flank with the echo and have the echo make all the attacks.
A great deal of this thread has been devoted to explaining that that doesn’t work.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/64918-an-echo-knight-faq-frequently-asked-questions
Given that the attack action can come from either the fighter or echo, and the echo can make its own attack a number of times based on the con modifier, I’d say that defending against the echo is just as important as the fighter.
This is pretty much where i landed as well.
By RAW, an Echo is not a creature, and thus doesn't provide flanking. However, DMs can do whatever they would like at their table, and an argument can easily be made that the Echo does "threaten". I think the real question for DMs if what else this ruling might impact. Does a "spiritual weapon" spell provide flanking as well? Animated objects?
But if you don't want to 'rules lawyer', then I would say that in combat there is certainly more of an advantage to having an Echo on the opposite side of an enemy then none at all.