I am playing an echo knight in a game and was recently caught by a paralysis spell. My DM ruled that this effect paralyzed my echo as well. I accept my DMs ruling but I began thinking about this situation. My DM ruled I was fully conscious and aware but unable to move. I had hoped to interpose the echo between myself and an attacker, gaining a round before I was in melee range and had another chance at a saving throw. I survived, but my understanding of moving the echo is: no action is required to move it, so unless I was mentally incapacitated I should be able to at least move it. Not take an attack action but at least move it. Thoughts?
I probably would have let you move it, though I can understand how you DM might have ruled otherwise in the moment, since there’s a few rules interactions. I’d suggest approaching the DM one-on-one and clarifying it, in case the situation comes up again. Not angrily, and it doesn’t seem like you are angry, but just asking them to look at the situation again, when they have time to consider it more fully and really review the text of the different powers and conditions involved.
Thank you for your response. You are correct, I am not particularly upset about it, being paralyzed is unusual and the build is still lot's of fun. I did talk to my DM afterwards. We are friends and he was open about it, he had not had an echo knight in a game before and he was concerned about the potential for abuse going forward. I am a bit of a min-maxer so his concern is not unreasonable. I am learning the build and just trying to learn it's abilities and limits, particularly in edge cases. I was not looking for a way to abuse it but I may have warranted his concern from past behavior.
I think I should have been able to move the echo, but no big deal. The DM is doing most of the work and I am enjoying his efforts, being an ass about something like that would just be rude.
Its a bit worse than that. The Echo completely vanishes when you are paralyzed (or incapacitated in any manner). So you can't really move it because it doesn't exist anymore. You'll have to resummon it on a future turn after you shake off the paralysis.
Thanks for the clarification. I had missed that detail of paralysis. I guess my DM did as well as that would have made his ruling simpler than my echo was paralyzed also.
in it's own kind of twist. Unless it was taken out while paralyzed anyway. he actually did you a favor by not destroying it. Because now you didn't have to summon it again. Once you broke free from paralysis you could just carry on using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am playing an echo knight in a game and was recently caught by a paralysis spell. My DM ruled that this effect paralyzed my echo as well. I accept my DMs ruling but I began thinking about this situation. My DM ruled I was fully conscious and aware but unable to move. I had hoped to interpose the echo between myself and an attacker, gaining a round before I was in melee range and had another chance at a saving throw. I survived, but my understanding of moving the echo is: no action is required to move it, so unless I was mentally incapacitated I should be able to at least move it. Not take an attack action but at least move it. Thoughts?
I probably would have let you move it, though I can understand how you DM might have ruled otherwise in the moment, since there’s a few rules interactions.
I’d suggest approaching the DM one-on-one and clarifying it, in case the situation comes up again. Not angrily, and it doesn’t seem like you are angry, but just asking them to look at the situation again, when they have time to consider it more fully and really review the text of the different powers and conditions involved.
Thank you for your response. You are correct, I am not particularly upset about it, being paralyzed is unusual and the build is still lot's of fun. I did talk to my DM afterwards. We are friends and he was open about it, he had not had an echo knight in a game before and he was concerned about the potential for abuse going forward. I am a bit of a min-maxer so his concern is not unreasonable. I am learning the build and just trying to learn it's abilities and limits, particularly in edge cases. I was not looking for a way to abuse it but I may have warranted his concern from past behavior.
I think I should have been able to move the echo, but no big deal. The DM is doing most of the work and I am enjoying his efforts, being an ass about something like that would just be rude.
RAW, you could move it. Moving an echo explicitly takes no action, so the paralysis would have no affect on moving the echo.
However, paralysis includes incapacitated, and being incapacitated destroys the echo. So there would have been nothing to move.
Its a bit worse than that. The Echo completely vanishes when you are paralyzed (or incapacitated in any manner). So you can't really move it because it doesn't exist anymore. You'll have to resummon it on a future turn after you shake off the paralysis.
Thanks for the clarification. I had missed that detail of paralysis. I guess my DM did as well as that would have made his ruling simpler than my echo was paralyzed also.
The echo wouldn't be paralyzed; it would be gone. The Knight being incapacitated destroys the echo.
in it's own kind of twist. Unless it was taken out while paralyzed anyway. he actually did you a favor by not destroying it. Because now you didn't have to summon it again. Once you broke free from paralysis you could just carry on using it.