"Is holding a grapple not part of the grapple attack? Why?" Because the rules exist. You don't make exceptions unless there is a direct contradiction. Your entire argument is that, because you can attack, you can fully use the grapple option RAI. You need to understand that "D&D is an exception-based set of rules."
I don't know if RAI is that it can maintain the grapple, but RAW, it can't for the reasons you've already given.
You're overstating the extent of RAW. The written rules fail to clarify the situation.
Similarly, RAI, it probably should be able to make attacks of opportunity based on changes in reach due to size or weapons, but RAW, it can't.
Can't it?
RAW, if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around you, you get to make an opportunity attack.
If you have a reach weapon, you can extend that range.
RAW, echo knight can let you make an opportunity attack as if you were in that space if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around it.
If you have a reach weapon, you can't extend that range? Why? Why is the opportunity attack range of echo knight immune to reach?
"Is holding a grapple not part of the grapple attack? Why?" Because the rules exist. You don't make exceptions unless there is a direct contradiction. Your entire argument is that, because you can attack, you can fully use the grapple option RAI. You need to understand that "D&D is an exception-based set of rules."
I don't know if RAI is that it can maintain the grapple, but RAW, it can't for the reasons you've already given.
You're overstating the extent of RAW. The written rules fail to clarify the situation.
Similarly, RAI, it probably should be able to make attacks of opportunity based on changes in reach due to size or weapons, but RAW, it can't.
Can't it?
RAW, if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around you, you get to make an opportunity attack.
If you have a reach weapon, you can extend that range.
RAW, echo knight can let you make an opportunity attack as if you were in that space if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around it.
If you have a reach weapon, you can't extend that range? Why? Why is the opportunity attack range of echo knight immune to reach?
Yes, it is.
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.
"Is holding a grapple not part of the grapple attack? Why?" Because the rules exist. You don't make exceptions unless there is a direct contradiction. Your entire argument is that, because you can attack, you can fully use the grapple option RAI. You need to understand that "D&D is an exception-based set of rules."
I don't know if RAI is that it can maintain the grapple, but RAW, it can't for the reasons you've already given.
You're overstating the extent of RAW. The written rules fail to clarify the situation.
Nothing about the Echo Knight says you can maintain a grapple solely via the Echo.
Similarly, RAI, it probably should be able to make attacks of opportunity based on changes in reach due to size or weapons, but RAW, it can't.
Can't it?
RAW, if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around you, you get to make an opportunity attack.
If you have a reach weapon, you can extend that range.
RAW, echo knight can let you make an opportunity attack as if you were in that space if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around it.
If you have a reach weapon, you can't extend that range? Why? Why is the opportunity attack range of echo knight immune to reach?
Your reach is not measured from the Echo's space to determine if you can make an opportunity 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.
If you can't see the creature, you can't make an attack of opportunity. (Not directly relevant to the discussion, but interesting)
The creature must within 5 feet of your echo and it must move at least 5 feet away from it. The echo's reach doesn't matter. Your reach doesn't matter.
If that triggers, then you can make an opportunity attack from the echo's space. You can use your Reach weapon if you like, but Reach does not affect whether you can make the opportunity attack in the first place.
Similarly, RAI, it probably should be able to make attacks of opportunity based on changes in reach due to size or weapons, but RAW, it can't.
Can't it?
RAW, if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around you, you get to make an opportunity attack.
If you have a reach weapon, you can extend that range.
RAW, echo knight can let you make an opportunity attack as if you were in that space if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around it.
If you have a reach weapon, you can't extend that range? Why? Why is the opportunity attack range of echo knight immune to reach?
Your reach is not measured from the Echo's space to determine if you can make an opportunity 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.
If you can't see the creature, you can't make an attack of opportunity. (Not directly relevant to the discussion, but interesting)
The creature must within 5 feet of your echo and it must move at least 5 feet away from it. The echo's reach doesn't matter. Your reach doesn't matter.
If that triggers, then you can make an opportunity attack from the echo's space. You can use your Reach weapon if you like, but Reach does not affect whether you can make the opportunity attack in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, both of these arguments go against the RAW of D&D -- specific beats general.
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
For grappling through the echo, you obviously can make a grapple, because the echo knight ability says you can make an attack from the echo's position, and grapple is an attack.
The only support for the claim that you can't hold a grapple is a general rule. The echo knight rules are silent on the subject. The only way the general rule ought to be applicable is if holding a grapple is somehow completely separate from making the attack in the first place, which you are explicitly permitted to do.
It's a point of interpretation. You can rule it that way at your table, but the rules don't make you, and I don't see why you'd want to.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
The only thing stopping you is the way the EK ability is phrased. It could be considered a restatement of the OA rules. It could be considered a hard limit, preventing you from using reach on the EK opportunity attacks. (Though if they meant to exclude reach weapons, they could've just said that.)
Again, it's a point of interpretation. You can rule it that way, but I don't see why you would want to.
Arguing RAW is limited to what's actually written. When you get into the interactions of multiple abilities, or the corner cases of a single ability that aren't fully clear, it's pretty much never written, and the exception-based nature of the system means you can't just cite the general rule and assert it applies. It's points of interpretation all the way down.
And that's part of the GM's role. To interpret the points of interpretation. To look at the intent of the abilities in question, and figure out how they should behave. The intent of EK is to let you attack and opportunity attack from the echo. The intent of grappling is that you can hold somebody in place. The intent of reach is that it extends your attacks and opportunity attacks.
I can get into the weeds of technical rules interpretation with the best of them. But that's neither necessary nor helpful here. (To be honest, it's almost never necessary for D&D, and only helpful inasmuch as it does help people to have a consistent baseline from table to table.) It's also not even possible, because the technical rules to interpret just don't exist. They would have to be in the EK rules, and they're not.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
The only thing stopping you is the way the EK ability is phrased. It could be considered a restatement of the OA rules. It could be considered a hard limit, preventing you from using reach on the EK opportunity attacks. (Though if they meant to exclude reach weapons, they could've just said that.)
Again, it's a point of interpretation. You can rule it that way, but I don't see why you would want to.
I would view that one in the same way that extending the range of your mage hand with the Telekinetic feat "didn't work" per RAW
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
This is true.
If the Echo Knight ability said that you can maintain a grapple there would be no concern or if it said that the Echo Knight's Unarmed Strike range can be measured from the Echo. However, it doesn't. It allows you to make an attack from the Echo's space. The attack can replaced by an [rules]Unarmed Strike[/spells] and one option for that is to Grapple. Grappling in 2024 sounds like an edge case, but when the Echo Knight was written and in the 2024 ruleset, grappling has a robust section in the main combat section. It seems unlikely that Matt Mercer (Lead Writer) and the WotC Developers, including Jeremy Crawford, did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram.
If you successfully Grapple the creature more than 5 feet from you by using the echo's location, the grapple ends immediately because you the Grappled Condition says "The condition also ends if the grappler has the Incapacitated condition or if the distance between the Grappled target and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range." What is the Echo Knight's range for a grapple (a subset of Unarmed Strike)? 5 feet from the Echo Knight. Can the Echo Knight measure that distance from Echo's space? Only while making the attack as part of the Attack action or as part of an Opportunity Attack.
Making a Bonus Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
Making a Magic Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
Specifically, the Echo Knight ability says "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."
It has nothing to do with reach. It's not about leaving the Echo's reach. It is explicitly about being within 5 feet of the echo and moving 5 feet or more away from it. It supersedes the general rules on triggering an Opportunity Attack in a way that is not based on your reach.
Reach says "A Reach weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."
The two don't interact at all when determining if a creature can trigger an opportunity attack. If you qualify for an attack of opportunity, you can certainly use your reach. I am not sure if there is value in that, maybe you could trigger it because they moved 5ft away, but still resolve it before they leave your reach.
It would have been much simpler to write that "as a reaction, you can make opportunity attacks as if you occupied your space or the echo's." And maybe that's what they intended, but it's not what they wrote.
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
This is true.
If the Echo Knight ability said that you can maintain a grapple there would be no concern or if it said that the Echo Knight's Unarmed Strike range can be measured from the Echo. However, it doesn't. It allows you to make an attack from the Echo's space. The attack can replaced by an [rules]Unarmed Strike[/spells] and one option for that is to Grapple. Grappling in 2024 sounds like an edge case, but when the Echo Knight was written and in the 2024 ruleset, grappling has a robust section in the main combat section. It seems unlikely that Matt Mercer (Lead Writer) and the WotC Developers, including Jeremy Crawford, did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram.
If you successfully Grapple the creature more than 5 feet from you by using the echo's location, the grapple ends immediately because you the Grappled Condition says "The condition also ends if the grappler has the Incapacitated condition or if the distance between the Grappled target and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range." What is the Echo Knight's range for a grapple (a subset of Unarmed Strike)? 5 feet from the Echo Knight. Can the Echo Knight measure that distance from Echo's space? Only while making the attack as part of the Attack action or as part of an Opportunity Attack.
Making a Bonus Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
Making a Magic Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
Specifically, the Echo Knight ability says "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."
It has nothing to do with reach. It's not about leaving the Echo's reach. It is explicitly about being within 5 feet of the echo and moving 5 feet or more away from it. It supersedes the general rules on triggering an Opportunity Attack in a way that is not based on your reach.
Reach says "A Reach weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."
The two don't interact at all when determining if a creature can trigger an opportunity attack. If you qualify for an attack of opportunity, you can certainly use your reach. I am not sure if there is value in that, maybe you could trigger it because they moved 5ft away, but still resolve it before they leave your reach.
It would have been much simpler to write that "as a reaction, you can make opportunity attacks as if you occupied your space or the echo's." And maybe that's what they intended, but it's not what they wrote.
This very last paragraph. They have written rules in this way before.
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
This is true.
If the Echo Knight ability said that you can maintain a grapple there would be no concern or if it said that the Echo Knight's Unarmed Strike range can be measured from the Echo. However, it doesn't. It allows you to make an attack from the Echo's space.
...and if you can make an attack from the echo's space, your reach for that attack must be measured from the Echo. It must be in order to make the attack.
Similarly, if you can make a grapple, you must be able to hold the grapple, otherwise the attack does literally nothing. You two are arguing that a ruling that says that the attack does not work at all still counts as allowing you to make the attack.
The attack can replaced by an [rules]Unarmed Strike[/spells] and one option for that is to Grapple. Grappling in 2024 sounds like an edge case, but when the Echo Knight was written and in the 2024 ruleset, grappling has a robust section in the main combat section. It seems unlikely that Matt Mercer (Lead Writer) and the WotC Developers, including Jeremy Crawford, did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram.
"Designers' inferred intent by omission" is a weak argument at the best of times in any rule set, much less with 5e, especially with the 2014 rules, which were hella sloppy. (As opposed to the 24 rules, which are still kinda sloppy.)
There are at least three possible readings of the lack of mention of grapples in Echo Knight:
The writer of that section didn't think of it, and neither did the person doing the rules edit. (Assuming they did a specific rules edit, which I certainly wouldn't bet money on.) Given the infrequency of grappling in 2014 combat, this is entirely plausible.
They thought that grappling includes being able to hold a grapple is an obvious interpretation. This is less likely, because once you think of the question, you acknowledge the possibility somebody else will. And it's an easy, short, add, and it's highly unlikely they were on a space squeeze so severe that cutting those words would help.
They thought that your interpretation was obvious. This has all the problems of the above, plus deciding that everyone will realize that, while specific beats general, the EK ability is obviously not specific enough to override the general rule.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
Specifically, the Echo Knight ability says "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."
It has nothing to do with reach. It's not about leaving the Echo's reach. It is explicitly about being within 5 feet of the echo and moving 5 feet or more away from it. It supersedes the general rules on triggering an Opportunity Attack in a way that is not based on your reach.
...or it's a restatement of the rules on opportunity attacks because they thought the interaction unclear. If you want to try to infer their intent by what they didn't say, if they'd meant to restrict reach, they could've easily said that reach didn't apply.
I don't think it matters, though. The rule is a restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attack through the echo. There's an argument to be made that reach extends any restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attacks. (Unless that restriction specifically excludes reach.)
The opportunity attack thing is a stronger argument by far than the grapple one, because you at least have actual text to work with.
In any event, you can certainly rule these your way at your table, even if they aren't RAW (or, for the opportunity attacks, are arguably RAW). I still don't see why you'd want to.
And I'm done. I've made my case extensively. If you aren't persuaded, you're not going to be persuaded, everybody else can read and decide as they wish, and it's a waste of time to keep going.
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
This is true.
If the Echo Knight ability said that you can maintain a grapple there would be no concern or if it said that the Echo Knight's Unarmed Strike range can be measured from the Echo. However, it doesn't. It allows you to make an attack from the Echo's space.
...and if you can make an attack from the echo's space, your reach for that attack must be measured from the Echo. It must be in order to make the attack.
Similarly, if you can make a grapple, you must be able to hold the grapple, otherwise the attack does literally nothing. You two are arguing that a ruling that says that the attack does not work at all still counts as allowing you to make the attack.
There is no guarantee that you can maintain the grapple. If you succeed on the grapple, you apply the Grappled. Any effect that triggers on that condition triggers on a successful attack. If a flying creature was grappled it would immediately start falling, but I am not sure if it would immediately stop falling upon regaining its fly speed. There is also the scenario of attacking from one space being at disadvantage but another space being a normal attack or even an attack with advantage. Say the enemy has the high ground and the GM rules that your attack will be at disadvantage so you position your echo on the same level, you can then grapple the enemy and maintain the grapple if the enemy is in range of both you and the echo AND there is a reason to do so.
There are at least three possible readings of the lack of mention of grapples in Echo Knight:
The writer of that section didn't think of it, and neither did the person doing the rules edit. (Assuming they did a specific rules edit, which I certainly wouldn't bet money on.) Given the infrequency of grappling in 2014 combat, this is entirely plausible.
They thought that grappling includes being able to hold a grapple is an obvious interpretation. This is less likely, because once you think of the question, you acknowledge the possibility somebody else will. And it's an easy, short, add, and it's highly unlikely they were on a space squeeze so severe that cutting those words would help.
They thought that your interpretation was obvious. This has all the problems of the above, plus deciding that everyone will realize that, while specific beats general, the EK ability is obviously not specific enough to override the general rule.
Oh, I definitely think they did not sufficiently consider grappling with an Echo Knight. I don't know what their intention was, but what they wrote does not work well with grappling except in some edge cases (see above). As I said earlier, "[they] did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram."
I am not arguing RAI or balance, just RAW. RAW is generally table-neutral and should always be the starting point for any decisions on house rules.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
Specifically, the Echo Knight ability says "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."
It has nothing to do with reach. It's not about leaving the Echo's reach. It is explicitly about being within 5 feet of the echo and moving 5 feet or more away from it. It supersedes the general rules on triggering an Opportunity Attack in a way that is not based on your reach.
...or it's a restatement of the rules on opportunity attacks because they thought the interaction unclear. If you want to try to infer their intent by what they didn't say, if they'd meant to restrict reach, they could've easily said that reach didn't apply.
I don't think it matters, though. The rule is a restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attack through the echo. There's an argument to be made that reach extends any restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attacks. (Unless that restriction specifically excludes reach.)
The thing is that it is not a restatement. It is a redesign. Reach affects opportunity attacks because the opportunity attack rules explicitly include it. "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." Reach is an explicit inclusion of the attack of opportunity rules. Instead of defining the range by your reach, the Echo Knight uses a set 5 ft.
Did someone ask Matt Mercer if he wanted to make it based on the character's reach and he said, "no"? Did he say that it should be based on the character's reach and WotC said, "no"? Who knows. I can only say that they worded the rules in a way that reach is taken out of the picture when triggering an attack of opportunity from the echo's space.
Similarly, if you can make a grapple, you must be able to hold the grapple, otherwise the attack does literally nothing. You two are arguing that a ruling that says that the attack does not work at all still counts as allowing you to make the attack.
By your logic, shouldn't creatures immune to the grappled condition not be immune? You can attempt to grapple them after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're overstating the extent of RAW. The written rules fail to clarify the situation.
Can't it?
RAW, if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around you, you get to make an opportunity attack.
If you have a reach weapon, you can extend that range.
RAW, echo knight can let you make an opportunity attack as if you were in that space if somebody leaves the five-foot radius around it.
If you have a reach weapon, you can't extend that range? Why? Why is the opportunity attack range of echo knight immune to reach?
Yes, it is.
Nothing about the Echo Knight says you can maintain a grapple solely via the Echo.
Your reach is not measured from the Echo's space to determine if you can make an opportunity attack.
If you can't see the creature, you can't make an attack of opportunity. (Not directly relevant to the discussion, but interesting)
The creature must within 5 feet of your echo and it must move at least 5 feet away from it. The echo's reach doesn't matter. Your reach doesn't matter.
If that triggers, then you can make an opportunity attack from the echo's space. You can use your Reach weapon if you like, but Reach does not affect whether you can make the opportunity attack in the first place.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
And nothing says it cannot.
As far as I'm concerned, both of these arguments go against the RAW of D&D -- specific beats general.
If a rule says you can do thing X under condition Y, you can, even if a more general rule says you cannot.
For grappling through the echo, you obviously can make a grapple, because the echo knight ability says you can make an attack from the echo's position, and grapple is an attack.
The only support for the claim that you can't hold a grapple is a general rule. The echo knight rules are silent on the subject. The only way the general rule ought to be applicable is if holding a grapple is somehow completely separate from making the attack in the first place, which you are explicitly permitted to do.
It's a point of interpretation. You can rule it that way at your table, but the rules don't make you, and I don't see why you'd want to.
As for the question of opportunity attacks through the echo and reach, it's more a case of specific vs specific.
But they don't actually contradict. EK lets you make opportunity attacks from the echo. Reach increases the range of your opportunity attacks.
The only thing stopping you is the way the EK ability is phrased. It could be considered a restatement of the OA rules. It could be considered a hard limit, preventing you from using reach on the EK opportunity attacks. (Though if they meant to exclude reach weapons, they could've just said that.)
Again, it's a point of interpretation. You can rule it that way, but I don't see why you would want to.
Arguing RAW is limited to what's actually written. When you get into the interactions of multiple abilities, or the corner cases of a single ability that aren't fully clear, it's pretty much never written, and the exception-based nature of the system means you can't just cite the general rule and assert it applies. It's points of interpretation all the way down.
And that's part of the GM's role. To interpret the points of interpretation. To look at the intent of the abilities in question, and figure out how they should behave. The intent of EK is to let you attack and opportunity attack from the echo. The intent of grappling is that you can hold somebody in place. The intent of reach is that it extends your attacks and opportunity attacks.
I can get into the weeds of technical rules interpretation with the best of them. But that's neither necessary nor helpful here. (To be honest, it's almost never necessary for D&D, and only helpful inasmuch as it does help people to have a consistent baseline from table to table.) It's also not even possible, because the technical rules to interpret just don't exist. They would have to be in the EK rules, and they're not.
I would view that one in the same way that extending the range of your mage hand with the Telekinetic feat "didn't work" per RAW
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nothing says I cannot change my skin color to blue with purple polka dots.
Nothing says you cannot initiate a grapple and the grapple around to be maintained by other allies.
You need the stated ability to do something in order to do it.
This is true.
If the Echo Knight ability said that you can maintain a grapple there would be no concern or if it said that the Echo Knight's Unarmed Strike range can be measured from the Echo. However, it doesn't. It allows you to make an attack from the Echo's space. The attack can replaced by an [rules]Unarmed Strike[/spells] and one option for that is to Grapple. Grappling in 2024 sounds like an edge case, but when the Echo Knight was written and in the 2024 ruleset, grappling has a robust section in the main combat section. It seems unlikely that Matt Mercer (Lead Writer) and the WotC Developers, including Jeremy Crawford, did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram.
If you successfully Grapple the creature more than 5 feet from you by using the echo's location, the grapple ends immediately because you the Grappled Condition says "The condition also ends if the grappler has the Incapacitated condition or if the distance between the Grappled target and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range." What is the Echo Knight's range for a grapple (a subset of Unarmed Strike)? 5 feet from the Echo Knight. Can the Echo Knight measure that distance from Echo's space? Only while making the attack as part of the Attack action or as part of an Opportunity Attack.
Making a Bonus Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
Making a Magic Action attack? Can't measure distance from the Echo.
Specifically, the Echo Knight ability says "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."
It has nothing to do with reach. It's not about leaving the Echo's reach. It is explicitly about being within 5 feet of the echo and moving 5 feet or more away from it. It supersedes the general rules on triggering an Opportunity Attack in a way that is not based on your reach.
Reach says "A Reach weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."
The two don't interact at all when determining if a creature can trigger an opportunity attack. If you qualify for an attack of opportunity, you can certainly use your reach. I am not sure if there is value in that, maybe you could trigger it because they moved 5ft away, but still resolve it before they leave your reach.
It would have been much simpler to write that "as a reaction, you can make opportunity attacks as if you occupied your space or the echo's." And maybe that's what they intended, but it's not what they wrote.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
This very last paragraph. They have written rules in this way before.
Blank
...and if you can make an attack from the echo's space, your reach for that attack must be measured from the Echo. It must be in order to make the attack.
Similarly, if you can make a grapple, you must be able to hold the grapple, otherwise the attack does literally nothing. You two are arguing that a ruling that says that the attack does not work at all still counts as allowing you to make the attack.
"Designers' inferred intent by omission" is a weak argument at the best of times in any rule set, much less with 5e, especially with the 2014 rules, which were hella sloppy. (As opposed to the 24 rules, which are still kinda sloppy.)
There are at least three possible readings of the lack of mention of grapples in Echo Knight:
...or it's a restatement of the rules on opportunity attacks because they thought the interaction unclear. If you want to try to infer their intent by what they didn't say, if they'd meant to restrict reach, they could've easily said that reach didn't apply.
I don't think it matters, though. The rule is a restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attack through the echo. There's an argument to be made that reach extends any restriction on the range at which you can make opportunity attacks. (Unless that restriction specifically excludes reach.)
The opportunity attack thing is a stronger argument by far than the grapple one, because you at least have actual text to work with.
In any event, you can certainly rule these your way at your table, even if they aren't RAW (or, for the opportunity attacks, are arguably RAW). I still don't see why you'd want to.
And I'm done. I've made my case extensively. If you aren't persuaded, you're not going to be persuaded, everybody else can read and decide as they wish, and it's a waste of time to keep going.
There is no guarantee that you can maintain the grapple. If you succeed on the grapple, you apply the Grappled. Any effect that triggers on that condition triggers on a successful attack. If a flying creature was grappled it would immediately start falling, but I am not sure if it would immediately stop falling upon regaining its fly speed. There is also the scenario of attacking from one space being at disadvantage but another space being a normal attack or even an attack with advantage. Say the enemy has the high ground and the GM rules that your attack will be at disadvantage so you position your echo on the same level, you can then grapple the enemy and maintain the grapple if the enemy is in range of both you and the echo AND there is a reason to do so.
Oh, I definitely think they did not sufficiently consider grappling with an Echo Knight. I don't know what their intention was, but what they wrote does not work well with grappling except in some edge cases (see above). As I said earlier, "[they] did not consider the full implications of an Echo hug-o-gram."
I am not arguing RAI or balance, just RAW. RAW is generally table-neutral and should always be the starting point for any decisions on house rules.
The thing is that it is not a restatement. It is a redesign. Reach affects opportunity attacks because the opportunity attack rules explicitly include it. "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." Reach is an explicit inclusion of the attack of opportunity rules. Instead of defining the range by your reach, the Echo Knight uses a set 5 ft.
Did someone ask Matt Mercer if he wanted to make it based on the character's reach and he said, "no"? Did he say that it should be based on the character's reach and WotC said, "no"? Who knows. I can only say that they worded the rules in a way that reach is taken out of the picture when triggering an attack of opportunity from the echo's space.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
By your logic, shouldn't creatures immune to the grappled condition not be immune? You can attempt to grapple them after all.