Echo Knight and DMs

[e42randy]

Playing an echo knight for the first time in a game. Our DM is usually very into the rule of cool, letting things slide if he feels it works well in-game even if the rules say otherwise... except when it comes to the manifested echo. He will have dumb enemies/animals walk through a moonbeam because they don't know what it is, but will never have any enemy attack the echo, even if just the turn before several maul attacks originated from it, and no other potential targets are in range. He will fudge action economy rules to let a rogue jump around and get an auto-crit on an unconscious enemy to save a turn, but won't allow the echo to get an auto-crit because the rules say "the attacker" has to be within 5 feet. Things like that. I am aware he is well within his rights to rule things whoever he wants, and if anything, he's being consistent in his adhesion to RAW with the echo. It's just odd to me that a rule of cool guy has decided my echo is decidedly uncool.

I'm mainly just curious how other DMs would rule on their echo knights. I know an echo without setting limits would be too much, but how far do you limit them? Do you agree with the example rulings given? How would you want a player to address their concerns about this with you?

[heavyfuel]

A lot of DMs are very anti "at will supernatural" abilities.

You can have at will abilities (like swinging a sword), but the second you start doing more than dealing single target damage with it, a lot of people just automatically think it's a munchkin ability that only nasty power-gamers want.

I don't know what to tell you. Talk it over with the DM. Lay out your concerns. If they are adamant that your echo sucks, ask to roll a new character. If they say no, quit the game and move on.

[Damon_Tor]

The problem with rule of cool is that "cool" is subjective. If your DM thinks the echo is stupid, then rule of cool isn't going to do you much good.

[e42randy]

A lot of DMs are very anti "at will supernatural" abilities. ...

Perhaps you are right, but this DM (that I've known for over a decade) isn't usually this sort of person. If anything, he usually loves munchkin stuff. And he seemed excited for me to play an echo knight when I asked if it was allowed. But feelings change, so you may be right.

And as far as getting changes or quitting, it's not game breaking or making me not have fun (though I guess it affects the level of fun). The post was just me being curious about other people's opinions on the rulings.

[micahaphone]

Maybe take Sentinel later, get those extra punishing ranged opportunity attacks?

[Man_Over_Game]

I suppose it could be something along the lines of his attempt at balancing his game. Maybe he sees you being very strong, and so he's more rigid with you than he is with his other players as a means of making sure everyone feels powerful.

EchoK's are generally pretty good at just adding generic damage with their free attacks and those OA's (or wasting an enemy's attack), so there isn't really a reason to baby you as much.

For me, personally, I'd let the Echo act as the player for most situations, and then I'd talk with them if I felt they were overshadowing everyone else.


Maybe take Sentinel later, get those extra punishing ranged opportunity attacks?

Agreed. It's kinda spiteful, but one of the things you can always do when you have a DM that's making dumb decisions is to plan around those decisions. He's targeting you too much? Increase your AC or pick up Shield. Ignores you too much? Pick up Sentinel. Constantly uses Counterspell? Save a level 3 spell slot to cast yourself.

[Hael]

The Echo Knight is one of the worst written subclasses in the game. RAW is a complete ambiguous word salad mess, and honestly you could punch holes in a lot of the 'online' consensus views on the subject, especially since they lead to things that don't seem RAI (like the aforementioned criticals).

I simply wouldn't play one without a long discussion with the DM in session zero about what you can and can't do. Bring up reach, OAs, interaction with feats, what the lvl 7 feature allows you to do, etc.

[Segev]

If he's never attacking the echo, that means you never have to spend your bonus action re-creating it and can keep using it for battlefield presence and control.

[quindraco]

The Echo Knight is one of the worst written subclasses in the game. RAW is a complete ambiguous word salad mess, and honestly you could punch holes in a lot of the 'online' consensus views on the subject, especially since they lead to things that don't seem RAI (like the aforementioned criticals).

I simply wouldn't play one without a long discussion with the DM in session zero about what you can and can't do. Bring up reach, OAs, interaction with feats, what the lvl 7 feature allows you to do, etc.

100% this. Echo Knights are ludicrously overpowered due to the word salad Hael is discussing, due to the necessary logical hoops most DMs jump through to render the thing operable in play. In fact, interpreted differently, they're simultaneously in some ways ludicrously underpowered. Your DM has no choice but to homebrew the bejeesus out of them just so you can actually play them.

I can tell you I would ordinarily never let one of my players play an Echo Knight, and if I did, I would substantially nerf many of the rulings you can find online based on how other DMs seem to assume the Echo works. For example, despite no such rule existing anywhere, many DMs assume the Echo is immune to gravity, and won't fall if left hanging in space. I would never let you get away with this - your Echo falls just like everything else in the game falls, barring a special rule to the contrary, which it hasn't got.

Most of the other ways the Echo works I would leave in place initially, as I've never actually DMed over one, and I'd want to wait and see before making a decision, but here's another "limit" I'd impose: since literally no rule exists to the contrary, I would let absolutely anyone, including you, pick the Echo up. You could then do whatever you liked with it, such as throwing it like a baseball, or using it as an ottoman. You do you, man.

[Segev]

I don't get this "word salad" thing. I have read its mechanics, and while it isn't trivial, it seems pretty clear to me what it does and how it works.

What are the confusing bits or controversies or contradictions or...whatever it is that makes it unusable?

[BerzerkerUnit]

I don't get this "word salad" thing. I have read its mechanics, and while it isn't trivial, it seems pretty clear to me what it does and how it works.

What are the confusing bits or controversies or contradictions or...whatever it is that makes it unusable?

Example: I rule the echo benefits from the reach of the PCs weapon and relevant feats. PAM is a good example. Others feel the wording is intended to limit the echo’s reach to 5 and prevent it from benefiting from other OA attacks like Sentinel or PAM.

[Hael]

There's a lot of pretty ridiculous interactions. For instance firebolt can hit the echo, but fireball can't (b/c the echo isn't flammable). Maybe thats par for the course to people who really adhere by RAW, but its just silly.

If the DM wants to be petty RAW (like disallowing reach weapons), then you can be petty too, as the ERRATA on the lvl 7 feature hasn't been printed yet. So for instance you can have an invulnerable echo that travels 1000feet away and you can use your action to assassinate someone without much counterplay.

Anyway, I really dislike rule lawyering with opaque material in live play, so its one of those things that IMO needs to be hashed through at length before it gets to that point.

[Dr.Samurai]

When I first saw the official Echo Knight I was surprised that this was printed. I would just be happy your DM is allowing you to play it. When I read it it seems like it would be disruptive to a game in the wrong hands.

I certainly would not take Sentinel to "get back at him" or anything. Maybe just share your slight frustration (or just curiosity) with him and see if it opens up a dialogue.

[Man_Over_Game]

Tbh, not sure why so many folks have a bone to pick with it.

It's a copied version of yourself from another timeline. It should follow most of the same physics you do. Common sense, guys.

[quindraco]

I don't get this "word salad" thing. I have read its mechanics, and while it isn't trivial, it seems pretty clear to me what it does and how it works.

What are the confusing bits or controversies or contradictions or...whatever it is that makes it unusable?

Well, Berzerkerunit already admitted to you how they override the RAW, so let's take MOG's RAW override - Man_Over_Game apparently thinks creature physics should apply to the echo, even though it's an object and hence subject to object physics, not creature physics. I can't even argue with MOG - that might well be a far more RAF way to play the Echo Knight.

Here are some quick tidbits to help point you in the right direction to see the problem:

The echo is an object that occupies its space, which almost nothing in the game provides for as a thing a PC can manifest and control mentally. E.g. a mage hand hand does not occupy its space.
The echo has no listed weight, so your DM has to just decide how much it weighs.
There's no clarity whatsoever on how much force the echo exerts when you move it.


This leads to all manner of DM rulings that are not consistent from table to table. For example, there's no question the RAW lets you move the Echo 30 feet straight up. Some DMs may houserule you can't do this, even though you can; particularly popular, though, is ruling that you can, but it hangs in space where you left it.

I've met one DM online who is absolutely adamant that despite the Echo occupying its space - so by definition movement through it is blocked, just like you can't move through a chair - somehow you can't stand on top of it. He's a weird dude and refuses to answer me when I ask him what happens when you jump above the Echo and let yourself fall, but he exists.

What exactly happens when you surf into battle on the Echo? When you tie a rope to it and use it to drag a cart? How about use it to ram the gates of a castle? Etc etc etc. It's just not sufficiently defined to even guess what the RAI is.

[Segev]

Example: I rule the echo benefits from the reach of the PCs weapon and relevant feats. PAM is a good example. Others feel the wording is intended to limit the echo’s reach to 5 and prevent it from benefiting from other OA attacks like Sentinel or PAM.

Okay, I can see the issue wrt reach weapons and provoking OAs, since it does say you can make an OA when a creature moves more than 5 feet from, not leaves the reach of, the echo, but even that's crystal clear and unambiguous. I could see ruling alternatively as a house rule, but I don't see it as being ambiguous. It clearly states, too, that you can make attacks from the echo's location as if you were standing there; everything applying to your attacks applies, including the reach of your weapons, as if you were standing in the echo's position. Even the question of using PAM or Sentinel is unambiguous: you are making the attacks or OAs "as if you were standing in the echo's space." If you could do it while standing there, you can do it through the echo.

So I remain unsure where these "others" who "feel the wording is intended to limit the echo's reach to 5 [feet] and prevent it from benefitting from other OA attacks like Sentinel or PAM" are drawing their reasoning. The language is unambiguous, and nothing says anything about limiting its reach except the singular point that the trigger condition for OAs is a creature moving more than 5 ft. away from the echo, rather than leaving your reach from the echo's position. And again, it's unambiguous even if it's a little weird.

[Valmark]

Why would the echo be an object? It has eyes to see, ears to hear, is a copy of a creature and the text even says it's a creature.

To be more precise, it says that the echo can get between an attack and another creature- that implies that the echo is a creature, or it couldn't get in front of another creature.

[Jerrykhor]

I don't interpret the Echo as being an object either. The Echo is (an image of) you, but obviously not the real you. Even constructs aren't objects either, they are just creatures with that particular type. I just think of them as creatures made of flimsy plastic in the image of you.

[stoutstien]

IMO All the CR content is slightly off point as far as balance and clean rule text goes. Probably why it's in that weird official content purgatory where it's acknowledged through other setting books but isn't actually connected.

As far as the OPs specific issues it's the same issue you run into any game when illusions or intangible effects are used as a core part of a player's concept. You really have to address it at session zero.

[Man_Over_Game]

IMO All the CR content is slightly off point as far as balance and clean rule text goes. Probably why it's in that weird official content purgatory where it's acknowledged through other setting books but isn't actually connected.

As far as the OPs specific issues it's the same issue you run into any game when illusions or intangible effects are used as a core part of a player's concept. You really have to address it at session zero.

TBF, saying that CR stuff is weird because interactions aren't laid out is kinda the same situation with the official illusions we get in the PHB. Just because it's official doesn't mean it's not stupid.

DMs aren't robots. If folks wanted to play something where the rules dictated everything, we'd all just be playing Baldur's Gate.


I've met one DM online who is absolutely adamant that despite the Echo occupying its space - so by definition movement through it is blocked, just like you can't move through a chair - somehow you can't stand on top of it. He's a weird dude and refuses to answer me when I ask him what happens when you jump above the Echo and let yourself fall, but he exists.

What exactly happens when you surf into battle on the Echo? When you tie a rope to it and use it to drag a cart? How about use it to ram the gates of a castle? Etc etc etc. It's just not sufficiently defined to even guess what the RAI is.

I've always perceived the Echo as this sort of "alternate reality feedback" thing. Kinda like how Warding Bond is able to share a damage type and not do something like Necrotic damage, the Echo alters reality for just a split second, only having a lasting impact during those very brief moments when an attack hits. That is, the only lasting change it can do is with your attack (which is why it can grant you extra attacks).

As far as occupying a space goes, let's be real. That's put in there so that things don't get complicated and weird. It'd be a lot worse without that clause (if it's occupying an enemy's space, can that enemy attack it?).

Still, I'd prefer the Echo Knight as official content than illusions. The only mentioned benefit of the Echo is being able to perceive through its eyes and making attacks, the rest is all conjecture. Illusions are nothing but conjecture, and they can be a much bigger and more frequent of an issue than deal than some ranged damage on the battlefield (See: frickin' Warlocks).

Don't get me wrong, I love illusions, I just hate how they implemented them. It's like you have to roll on the wild magic table to see how your DM interprets them, and even the same DM might decide to reroll after a few sessions.

[Trask]

A little off topic since you said this doesn't apply to your DM, but I personally find the flavor of the echo knight silly and dare I even say, "immersion breaking" in how over-the-top and "animesque" it is, and I don't imagine I'm alone in that feeling.

Of course I try my best to not to let my biases influence my rulings, but we're all human and it's definitely easier to say yes to something when it's cool in your mind.

[loki_ragnarock]

A little off topic since you said this doesn't apply to your DM, but I personally find the flavor of the echo knight silly and dare I even say, "immersion breaking" in how over-the-top and "animesque" it is, and I don't imagine I'm alone in that feeling.

Of course I try my best to not to let my biases influence my rulings, but we're all human and it's definitely easier to say yes to something when it's cool in your mind.

Considering how gonzo D&D has potential to be with things like purple worm bombs, magic jar bodyswapping, the classic portable hole bag of holding arrow, the idea that someone's class features are basically them from the future showing up to help out in a limited capacity seems pretty on brand.

Even tame, really.

[Segev]

A little off topic since you said this doesn't apply to your DM, but I personally find the flavor of the echo knight silly and dare I even say, "immersion breaking" in how over-the-top and "animesque" it is, and I don't imagine I'm alone in that feeling.

Of course I try my best to not to let my biases influence my rulings, but we're all human and it's definitely easier to say yes to something when it's cool in your mind.

Not trying to argue with you at all, here, just to get more inside your head: does the Trickster Cleric's "Invoke Duplicity" feature also feel immersion breaking and "animesque" to you? If not, why doesn't it, but the Echo does?

[Contrast]

If you could do it while standing there, you can do it through the echo.

The third bullet point of Sentinel and the second of PAM are mostly non-functional with the Echo, precisely because they're very specific as to when you count as being in the Echos space. You specifically count as stading in that spot while taking the attack action and for the purposes of potential opportunity attacks when someone is moving more than 5ft away and at no other time.

Neither of those will typically be true when an enemy moves into the reach of an Echo or attacks someone adjacent to an Echo.


Why would the echo be an object? It has eyes to see, ears to hear, is a copy of a creature and the text even says it's a creature.

To be more precise, it says that the echo can get between an attack and another creature- that implies that the echo is a creature, or it couldn't get in front of another creature.

Do they have (functional) eyes and ears? You are not allowed to make perception checks from the Echos position until level 7, nor is it capable of making opportunity attacks unless the original can see the opportunity to do so.

It is described as a 'magical, translucent, gray image' rather than a creature and this does have a number of mechanical implications.

The echo can't for example, open a door, pick something up or pull a lever. Nor is it clear if it would be required to make a stealth check or, if it were, what stats you would use to make one. It doesn't share your AC so it clearly isn't just a duplicate of the creator but something different but what difference is left up the user to figure out.

I really like Echo Knight and have enjoyed playing one but mechanically its a bit of a mess.

Edit - Oh and to answer OPs question, if anything my DM was a little too enthusiastic to play around with the Echo concept. Turns out if you have the Echo occasionally super boost in power (creating a full duplicate of the user with their own turn in the initiative order) that's a smidge OP even with the chance of getting ripped out of the current combat and sent back to a previous combat where you summoned your Echo. :smallbiggrin:

[Valmark]

Do they have (functional) eyes and ears? You are not allowed to make perception checks from the Echos position until level 7, nor is it capable of making opportunity attacks unless the original can see the opportunity to do so.

It is described as a 'magical, translucent, gray image' rather than a creature and this does have a number of mechanical implications.

The echo can't for example, open a door, pick something up or pull a lever. Nor is it clear if it would be required to make a stealth check or, if it were, what stats you would use to make one. It doesn't share your AC so it clearly isn't just a duplicate of the creator but something different but what difference is left up the user to figure out.

I really like Echo Knight and have enjoyed playing one but mechanically its a bit of a mess.

Imo they have to be functional or you can't use them when you get the feature.

While true that it has limitations, it's also true that the text says that the Echo can jump in front of "another" creature, which implies it being a creature itself.

Honestly I'm not even sure which would be the best thing- being a creature does make the echo vulnerable to a lot of stuff that objects tipically aren't.

[Man_Over_Game]

Considering how gonzo D&D has potential to be with things like purple worm bombs, magic jar bodyswapping, the classic portable hole bag of holding arrow, the idea that someone's class features are basically them from the future showing up to help out in a limited capacity seems pretty on brand.

Even tame, really.

Agreed. It's about time that Fighters got more superpowers than "I'm good with swords" and "I got special powers from another class". We finally got 2 from Tasha's, but I'm not going to turn away a 3rd option because alternate reality ghosts aren't realistic or explicit enough in my fantasy RP game.

[Trask]

Not trying to argue with you at all, here, just to get more inside your head: does the Trickster Cleric's "Invoke Duplicity" feature also feel immersion breaking and "animesque" to you? If not, why doesn't it, but the Echo does?

It's not so much the subclass, but how it's explained. The echo knight just has this incredibly supernatural ability from pure technique rather than a magical source or special item, that's what I mean by "anime-esque". I wish that WotC would be more confident and just write more detailed lore for classes without trying to keep it vague (read: bland) which just makes all the magic fall flat. The rune knight is a good example of how they did this better.

Although I admit I'm not a fan of how magical every subclass, and the game in general, has become. I understand and respect that for some people this doesn't matter and they just want new shiny stuff for the fighter and other traditional martials, and I agree that these classes should be dynamic and fun to play, but I don't think every subclass needs to have glamorous magical abilities to be fun.

The frenzy and battlerager barbarian are the only truly nonmagical subclasses for the BARBARIAN, a class that was founded and steeped in an archetype of the superstitious and magic hating warrior.

There is such a thing as too much color.

[JackPhoenix]

A what knight? Just like the MtG stuff, I don't want anything from Critical Role to touch my games.

[micahaphone]

A what knight? Just like the MtG stuff, I don't want anything from Critical Role to touch my games.

Seems like an arbitrary rule but hey it's your table. In case you were actually interested, here's the level 3 stuff they get:

Echo Knight EGW p183

A mysterious and feared frontline warrior of the Kryn Dynasty, the Echo Knight has mastered the art of using dunamis(Micah note - time/space magic) to summon the fading shades of unrealized timelines to aid them in battle. Surrounded by echoes of their own might, they charge into the fray as a cycling swarm of shadows and strikes.
Manifest Echo

3rd-level Echo Knight feature

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, until you dismiss it as a bonus action, until you manifest another echo, or until you're incapacitated.

Your echo has AC 14 + your proficiency bonus, 1 hit point, and immunity to all conditions. If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw bonus for the roll. It is the same size as you, and it occupies its space. On your turn, you can mentally command the echo to move up to 30 feet in any direction (no action required). If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.

You can use the echo in the following ways:

As a bonus action, you can teleport, magically swapping places with your echo at a cost of 15 feet of your movement, regardless of the distance between the two of you.
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.

Unleash Incarnation

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.

[Contrast]

Imo they have to be functional or you can't use them when you get the feature.

Does the Clairvoyance spell create a functioning set of eyes or ears or is it just magic that you can see/hear through the sensor?

I will concede that in most cases it will look like it has eyes and ears. The echo however cannot be deafened or blinded which leads me to believe its ability to see and hear is a special/magical ability rather than a biological one.

Which brings up another weird rules issue. You become blinded and defeaned when you see through the Echo - but if you were already blind or deaf can you still see? This is resolved with Find Familiar because you use the familiars defined senses but in this case, the Echo has no defined senses. If it uses yours...well you're deafened and blinded.


While true that it has limitations, it's also true that the text says that the Echo can jump in front of "another" creature, which implies it being a creature itself.

Certainly the way we ran the Echo at my table was to pretend it was a creature in most cases, for things like AoEs/damage spells, but was more illusion than a real creature for other elements. The magic of its creation means it has physicality for body blocking and it can't fly/pass through walls (unless the original can) but its hand will pass through a door handle and you can't grapple or restrain it. That's all something that sort of has to be worked out with the DM on a case by case basis though.

[Segev]

Does the Clairvoyance spell create a functioning set of eyes or ears or is it just magic that you can see/hear through the sensor?

I will concede that in most cases it will look like it has eyes and ears. The echo however cannot be deafened or blinded which leads me to believe its ability to see and hear is a special/magical ability rather than a biological one.

Which brings up another weird rules issue. You become blinded and defeaned when you see through the Echo - but if you were already blind or deaf can you still see? This is resolved with Find Familiar because you use the familiars defined senses but in this case, the Echo has no defined senses. If it uses yours...well you're deafened and blinded.



Certainly the way we ran the Echo at my table was to pretend it was a creature in most cases, for things like AoEs/damage spells, but was more illusion than a real creature for other elements. The magic of its creation means it has physicality for body blocking and it can't fly/pass through walls (unless the original can) but its hand will pass through a door handle and you can't grapple or restrain it. That's all something that sort of has to be worked out with the DM on a case by case basis though.

I would tend to assume that if no senses are specified other than "as if you were there," you use your own senses.

[Contrast]

I would tend to assume that if no senses are specified other than "as if you were there," you use your own senses.

Lets imagine a situation where someone was using the level 7 ability. They're blind and deaf and looking through their Echo.

Someone casts Blindess on them and they fail the save. What happens?

They were already blind, so being blind does nothing. Except if are they using their senses to look through the Echo so they should suddenly go blind? But they were already blind from the effect so if thats how that works they should have been blind from the start? Does it matter if you summon the Echo before or after someone casts Blindness on you?

You can probably agree with your DM how this works but RAW its unclear and generally just a bit of a mess.

[Valmark]

Does the Clairvoyance spell create a functioning set of eyes or ears or is it just magic that you can see/hear through the sensor?

I will concede that in most cases it will look like it has eyes and ears. The echo however cannot be deafened or blinded which leads me to believe its ability to see and hear is a special/magical ability rather than a biological one.

Which brings up another weird rules issue. You become blinded and defeaned when you see through the Echo - but if you were already blind or deaf can you still see? This is resolved with Find Familiar because you use the familiars defined senses but in this case, the Echo has no defined senses. If it uses yours...well you're deafened and blinded.

Certainly the way we ran the Echo at my table was to pretend it was a creature in most cases, for things like AoEs/damage spells, but was more illusion than a real creature for other elements. The magic of its creation means it has physicality for body blocking and it can't fly/pass through walls (unless the original can) but its hand will pass through a door handle and you can't grapple or restrain it. That's all something that sort of has to be worked out with the DM on a case by case basis though.

Clairvoyance creates a sensor, though I'm not sure why that's relevant to Echo Knights- the feature explicitely says that you see through its eyes and ears. There's no doubt on that specific part. More precisely you move your mind in the echo (consciousness rather, unsure of the difference) and move its body around.

Imo it has the same senses you have, being a version of you- and also because, like you said, you're blinded and defeaned so they can't be your senses exactly.

That's interesting- if I were to rule that it can't pass through walls I'd also rule that it can indeed manipolate objects, since it doesn't otherwise make sense that it can't move through walls. Tangent aside, yeah those are all rulings specific to the table.

Worth restating that I'm not saying the Echo Knight has clear text which doesn't need rulings- I'm noting that it's heavily implied in the text that the Echo is its own creature.


I would tend to assume that if no senses are specified other than "as if you were there," you use your own senses.

It doesn't say that. No senses are specified but the text says that you use its eyes and ears (or rather see and hear through them).


Lets imagine a situation where someone was using the level 7 ability. They're blind and deaf and looking through their Echo.

Someone casts Blindess on them and they fail the save. What happens?

They were already blind, so being blind does nothing. Except if are they using their senses to look through the Echo so they should suddenly go blind? But they were already blind from the effect so if thats how that works they should have been blind from the start? Does it matter if you summon the Echo before or after someone casts Blindness on you?

You can probably agree with your DM how this works but RAW its unclear and generally just a bit of a mess.

Seems to me that it makes no sense for Blindness to blind your already blinded eyes and somehow also the eyes of someone (something?) else.

Without upcasting, at least.

[Segev]

Lets imagine a situation where someone was using the level 7 ability. They're blind and deaf and looking through their Echo.

Someone casts Blindess on them and they fail the save. What happens?

They were already blind, so being blind does nothing. Except if are they using their senses to look through the Echo so they should suddenly go blind? But they were already blind from the effect so if thats how that works they should have been blind from the start? Does it matter if you summon the Echo before or after someone casts Blindness on you?

You can probably agree with your DM how this works but RAW its unclear and generally just a bit of a mess.

It's only unclear if you don't establish your baseline assumptions. As I said, I assume, barring the rules stating otherwise, if you sense 'as if at' a particular location, you do so with your own senses.

You're "blind and deaf" only wrt your own location, per the RAW, and context makes it perfectly clear what that means. It's there to answer the question of whether and how you see two different fields of view, etc.: you don't.

If you're looking through your echo and - per the assumption I established earlier - perceive as if using your own senses at the echo's location, should you get blinded or deafened by magic whammying you at your current location, you're blinded or deafened, now, and that means you're blind or deaf and lose that sense at the echo's location.

If it's not magic, but rather something that damages your senses directly, it'd be a DM call whether magically perceiving from another location that doesn't perceive the loud noise or bright flash would protect your senses or not. I can see argument either way, but this is also a corner enough case that I do not think the RAW are "a bit of a mess" due to needing the DM call.

[da newt]

For my Echo Knight the DM and I agreed that:

My Echo is an object, it occupies space, it cannot be passed through
It can move in any direction and float unsupported
It cannot carry anyone or anything
It is not affected by damage that only affects creatures - it is affected by any damage that affects objects
It cannot see/hear, but after lvl 7, I can move my consciousness/senses to it's point of view

In practice this all worked out pretty well. The only bit that I was unhappy about was that my DM decided monsters would never attempt to attack it - this doesn't make sense to me, but it was easy enough to accommodate.

I enjoyed playing the EK (MC w/ AG Barb) - the tactical positioning was always in play and the teleport was so handy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I agree with Segev and Man_Over_Game--it's pretty clear what the ability does and does not do. The complains read like persnickiry rules-lawyering of the sort that can always find weird exploits.

It could stand to be a little more explicit on one or two points (does it occupy a square, can you take non-attack actions through it), but I'd rather the ability be written as it is now than have it try to cover every possible edge case and loophole. That's how you get "word salad."

[Hael]

I agree with Segev and Man_Over_Game--it's pretty clear what the ability does and does not do.. That's how you get "word salad."

Hmm, perhaps it’s clear to you, but Crawford spent a great deal of time clarifying this class. To this day, people are unsure if you can grapple with it, or if you can move the echo through various terrain hazards. Can allies move through it? Can it fall like an object if it’s released? Does it make a sound if someone hits it? Why can I make a reach attack with it on my turn but not on an OA. Why can I cast a cantrip as an OA with warcaster, but not as a main action.

Is the echo avatar just a regular echo with sight and hearing? What about feats like swashbuckler.

The wording has led to a sorta RAW consensus, but the resulting mechanics are so silly that the charitable interpretation is that the author never intended for most of how the class is currently played.

[Spiritchaser]

To the OP, I’d tend to take a literal approach to things like “the attacker must be within 5’ “ and interpret that to mean that the attacker “the character not the echo” must be within 5’. Similarly, I’d interpret other things fairly literally such as the echo being able to move in any direction… that includes up and down. That’s a really big deal

I think playing an EchK this way opens up powerful tactical options not available to other characters, even though it closes options players might take for granted. It is a bit alien and finds it’s strength through using the ways rules interact differently with the echo.


I’d actually give it very high marks for fun interesting and different. I’d give it lower marks for being less than beginner friendly, both for players and DMs.

I don’t feel that Echo knight is close to the worst thing out there for clarity, heck the darkness spell all on its own will generally create more frequent, worse messes with multiple, significantly different self consistent and valid interpretations of how it runs, and that’s generally considered a fairly well understood spell.

While I think EchK is probably the strongest fighter, or at least close, I don’t feel it’s out of line with other characters at all, in fact I think it’s wonderful, even critically necessary that fighters have an option like this.

If you’re feeling that your DM is ruling harshly against your character, have a chat. They may be expecting you to use rule interactions that you aren’t, and may not understand how you feel about the situation. Be as open as you can be and hope for the best

[Pex]

Playing an echo knight for the first time in a game. Our DM is usually very into the rule of cool, letting things slide if he feels it works well in-game even if the rules say otherwise... except when it comes to the manifested echo. He will have dumb enemies/animals walk through a moonbeam because they don't know what it is, but will never have any enemy attack the echo, even if just the turn before several maul attacks originated from it, and no other potential targets are in range. He will fudge action economy rules to let a rogue jump around and get an auto-crit on an unconscious enemy to save a turn, but won't allow the echo to get an auto-crit because the rules say "the attacker" has to be within 5 feet. Things like that. I am aware he is well within his rights to rule things whoever he wants, and if anything, he's being consistent in his adhesion to RAW with the echo. It's just odd to me that a rule of cool guy has decided my echo is decidedly uncool.

I'm mainly just curious how other DMs would rule on their echo knights. I know an echo without setting limits would be too much, but how far do you limit them? Do you agree with the example rulings given? How would you want a player to address their concerns about this with you?

What the DM says goes, If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. You have every right to be bothered and speak up if the DM is being lenient to everyone else in their abilities but insists on rigidity of dotted i's and crossed t's with your stuff. Talk to him about it and say he is being unfair to you. The DM is certainly right to be by the book, but it should be across the board. If other players get leniency, you should get leniency. If you have to follow the rules to the letter, other players have to follow the rules to the letter.

[Segev]

To the OP, I’d tend to take a literal approach to things like “the attacker must be within 5’ “ and interpret that to mean that the attacker “the character not the echo” must be within 5’. Similarly, I’d interpret other things fairly literally such as the echo being able to move in any direction… that includes up and down. That’s a really big deal


Same, though I will point out the places where it says something amounting to, "as if you were where the echo is," you should treat the character as being within 5 ft. of where the echo is.

[Randomthom]

I'm a fairly by-the-rules DM so I'm probably not much like your DM but here's my 2c.

The rule of cool does not mean the rule of do whatever the hell you want.

Rules are there to provide structure and challenge. Overcoming these challenges is, for many people, the fun of the game. If the DM allows the rules to be broken because "it's cool" then you're not really playing a game anymore. You're just basically playing a game of "wouldn't it be cool if..." followed by "yes it would, that's what happens".

For me, the rule of cool is for those moments when the DM has to make a judgement call, either because the rules are unclear or non-existent. When in doubt, go with the cooler option.

This is fine for momentary situations. You can make that judgement call because this situation will probably never happen again.

That is not true for character abilities. When the DM makes a ruling on a character ability, it is going to come up again and again and again. Not only that, the DM has to consider if saying "yes" to something that sounds overpowered will allow that character to overshadow another character.

The Echo knight is full of ambiguity in a way that I don't think any other published subclass is. I have a lvl 12 Echo Knight in my campaign and honestly, I think I'll disallow it in future, it's too poorly written rules-wise to manage.

[Segev]

The Echo knight is full of ambiguity in a way that I don't think any other published subclass is.

This is the statement that I disagree with. How is it more full of ambiguity than, say, the Illusionist Wizard, or the Soul Knife Rogue, as two examples?

It seems pretty concrete, to me. The "ambiguities" that have been mentioned don't sound any more ambiguous than anything else, and frequently just sound like places where somebody wishes the DM to rule differently or wishes the rules didn't permit what they permit.

I hate to sound snippy or dismissive, but I've tried hard to understand where these gaps, messy rules, word salads, and ambiguities are, and I just don't see them.

You say you've got a level 12 echo knight in your game whose problematic due to ambiguities; can you explain the problems you see, please? I feel like I must be missing something.

[quindraco]

My Echo is an object, it occupies space, it cannot be passed through
It can move in any direction and float unsupported
It cannot carry anyone or anything


Right, this is a great example of what I was discussing earlier:

1) There is simply no reason to think the Echo can float unsupported. It also has no defined weight, so there's no question your DM is in completely safe territory declaring that it has neutral buoyancy - I'm not picking a fight with your DM, here. My point is that Echo Knights are made out of house rules due to their... "quirky" RAW, and one of the very common house rules is that Echoes float, despite no rule saying they do.
2) An object that both a) occupies space and accordingly cannot be passed through and b) cannot carry anyone or anything can't exist, but that doesn't stop many DMs from agreeing with yours. By definition, if it physically occupies space, something on top of it does not fall through it, which is the definition of carry.
2.1) And of course, as soon as you move the Echo while something is on top of it, we immediately progress into a situation with no RAW guidance at all. How sticky or smooth should the top of the Echo be? How much force should it exert when it moves? This second question, at least, is not restricted to Echoes - almost no forced movement effects in the game clarify how much oomph they exert. Can Shape Water move a cart if it's lashed to an ice block?

[quindraco]

This is the statement that I disagree with. How is it more full of ambiguity than, say, the Illusionist Wizard, or the Soul Knife Rogue, as two examples?

It seems pretty concrete, to me. The "ambiguities" that have been mentioned don't sound any more ambiguous than anything else, and frequently just sound like places where somebody wishes the DM to rule differently or wishes the rules didn't permit what they permit.

I hate to sound snippy or dismissive, but I've tried hard to understand where these gaps, messy rules, word salads, and ambiguities are, and I just don't see them.

You say you've got a level 12 echo knight in your game whose problematic due to ambiguities; can you explain the problems you see, please? I feel like I must be missing something.

Soul Knives have no ambiguity I've noticed yet, only rules that aren't very good. The rules aren't confusing. If you want a genuine non-Echo Knight example of word salad, look at the Artillerist ability - which is now also on Spirits Bards - that relies on casting a spell "through" a focus. Anyone telling you they know what that means is lying to you - all we have is sheer guesswork.

[Randomthom]

This is the statement that I disagree with. How is it more full of ambiguity than, say, the Illusionist Wizard, or the Soul Knife Rogue, as two examples?

It seems pretty concrete, to me. The "ambiguities" that have been mentioned don't sound any more ambiguous than anything else, and frequently just sound like places where somebody wishes the DM to rule differently or wishes the rules didn't permit what they permit.

I hate to sound snippy or dismissive, but I've tried hard to understand where these gaps, messy rules, word salads, and ambiguities are, and I just don't see them.

You say you've got a level 12 echo knight in your game whose problematic due to ambiguities; can you explain the problems you see, please? I feel like I must be missing something.

Here's one example.
As a bonus action, you can teleport, magically swapping places with your echo at a cost of 15 feet of your movement, regardless of the distance between the two of you.

When you take the Attack action on your turn, any attack you make with that action can originate from your space or the echoÂ’s space. You make this choice for each attack.

Echo Avatar
7th-level Echo Knight feature

You can temporarily transfer your consciousness to your echo. As an action, you can see through your echoÂ’s eyes and hear through its ears. During this time, you are deafened and blinded. You can sustain this effect for up to 10 minutes, and you can end it at any time (requires no action). While your echo is being used in this way, it can be up to 1,000 feet away from you without being destroyed.

Reading those 2 abilities, one might assume that the design intent is that you can teleport to your avatar even if it is 1,000 ft away. The RAW certainly appears to be so.
You might also assume that you can attack from your avatar from up to 1,000 ft away.

Neither of these readings are a) correct*, b) the intent of the designer** or c) balanced (when considered vs other fighter subclass abilities).
*According to Perkins, Mearls or **Mercer.

The other issues with the Echo are mostly around the nature or substance of it. It FEELS wrong. It is an "image" that can make attacks but can't open doors. It is an object that occupies a space as normally only a creature can. It can also fly ("can move in any direction"). It blurs a lot of the normal distinctions between object and creature and seems to take the best from both worlds.

The theme is good but the execution jars with the rules of the game and it won't take long in a game (this thread is proof in point) before the fluff & the crunch here collide and the DM has to make a ruling that might make the player feel meh but the DM may have done for the sake of the balance or versimilitude of the game.

[Damon_Tor]

If I were designing the subclass I would have just given the fighter the ability to occupy two spaces at a time. I don't get why they made the ability so complicated.

[Segev]

Reading those 2 abilities, one might assume that the design intent is that you can teleport to your avatar even if it is 1,000 ft away. The RAW certainly appears to be so.
You might also assume that you can attack from your avatar from up to 1,000 ft away.

Neither of these readings are a) correct*, b) the intent of the designer** or c) balanced (when considered vs other fighter subclass abilities).
*According to Perkins, Mearls or **Mercer.

Then they wrote the abilities poorly, yes, but they still do work together, unambiguously, as you outlined. The fact that the writers defined abilities they didn't mean to doesn't make the abilities ambiguous.

This is a repeated problem with the 5e writers who interact with the customers; they have a habit of not analyzing the RAW, but of saying "it doesn't do what the RAW says it does."

I wouldn't say it's a problem if they said, "Woops, wow, yeah, it looks like it does do that. We meant for it only to do this, and didn't intend that interaction; here's how we recommend you rule on it." But they have a tendency to muddy the water by giving "authoritative interpretations" that actually are flat-out incorrect by the RAW. If they're that badly out of whack, they should errata them, not pretend they say something they don't.

Again, the writers coming along and saying, "no, up means down here," doesn't make the rule that says you can use the power to go up ambiguous; it makes the writers wrong about what they claim the rules say.

[quindraco]

Then they wrote the abilities poorly, yes, but they still do work together, unambiguously, as you outlined. The fact that the writers defined abilities they didn't mean to doesn't make the abilities ambiguous.

This is a repeated problem with the 5e writers who interact with the customers; they have a habit of not analyzing the RAW, but of saying "it doesn't do what the RAW says it does."

I wouldn't say it's a problem if they said, "Woops, wow, yeah, it looks like it does do that. We meant for it only to do this, and didn't intend that interaction; here's how we recommend you rule on it." But they have a tendency to muddy the water by giving "authoritative interpretations" that actually are flat-out incorrect by the RAW. If they're that badly out of whack, they should errata them, not pretend they say something they don't.

Again, the writers coming along and saying, "no, up means down here," doesn't make the rule that says you can use the power to go up ambiguous; it makes the writers wrong about what they claim the rules say.

Absolutely no-one, not Mercer, not Crawford, not anybody, is going around claiming the RAW isn't that you can move an Echo up. That's not at issue here.

If you want to poke at a real-world example, this very thread has given you ample fuel, but I might suggest you start with the question of whether or not an Echo falls after you move it up. Don't forget precedent, so here are some spells and class abilities to make your life harder:

Flaming Sphere (the sphere is written like it falls, since it has mechanics for jumping over things, but nothing is explicitly clear)
Illusory Dragon (much the same problem - a manifested object that occupies its space, and no rule in the game prevents it from falling, but the spell text "feels" like the intent is that it doesn't fall)
Psi Warrior (fighter subclass) ability Telekinetic Movement: this is just proof that rules text that lets you move things up doesn't mean the thing doesn't fall down again, as this ability is written just that way, but works on targets we know do fall, like spoons.

[Segev]

Absolutely no-one, not Mercer, not Crawford, not anybody, is going around claiming the RAW isn't that you can move an Echo up. That's not at issue here.

If you want to poke at a real-world example, this very thread has given you ample fuel, but I might suggest you start with the question of whether or not an Echo falls after you move it up. Don't forget precedent, so here are some spells and class abilities to make your life harder:

Flaming Sphere (the sphere is written like it falls, since it has mechanics for jumping over things, but nothing is explicitly clear)
Illusory Dragon (much the same problem - a manifested object that occupies its space, and no rule in the game prevents it from falling, but the spell text "feels" like the intent is that it doesn't fall)
Psi Warrior (fighter subclass) ability Telekinetic Movement: this is just proof that rules text that lets you move things up doesn't mean the thing doesn't fall down again, as this ability is written just that way, but works on targets we know do fall, like spoons.

I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling either way on the Echo once moved up, but nothing in its description implies you even must summon it on the ground. Why would it necessarily fall? It "is a magical, translucent, gray image of you," with the keyword being "image" in this case. It isn't an object; it's an image that has explicit rules for attacking it and it has exactly 1 hp that it can lose to anything that would damage a creature. Again, it's very clear what it is and does, and only trying to read something into it creates ambiguity. Images are not bound to stand on the ground; I doubt anybody argues silent image can't have a floating orb of mystery hovering in the middle of nowhere, for instance.

As for the Psi Warrior's telekinetic movement, not only is it definitely over with when you conclude the movement, but you can't possibly re-do it because you need to short rest, first. Therefore, there is unambiguously no continuity of force on the target, so whatever rules apply to it apply.

Things that provide rules for how they can move that rely on them falling - such as the jumping rules for flaming sphere - and which have extant rules on falling - such as a spoon lifted into the air by Telekinetic Movement, which is still a spoon and thus falls if not supported by anything - follow those rules.

Images are not specified to fall for being unsupported anywhere. Nor are they implied to by any real-world expectations nor game mechanics. It really isn't ambiguous, but again, I wouldn't argue too strongly with a DM who ruled otherwise. I would be surprised by it, and wouldn't expect DMs to find this ambiguous, but apparently there are expectations causing people to believe something that isn't written to support those expectations means there's ambiguity due to the discrepancy between the RAW and their expectations.

This isn't an attack, mind. It's just an observation. I do believe these people are making logical errors, but it's understandable. I have made similar ones in other circumstances due to preconceptions. I just didn't have preconceptions, I guess, when it comes to the Echo.

[Hael]

I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling either way on the Echo once moved up, but nothing in its description implies you even must summon it on the ground. Why would it necessarily fall? It "is a magical, translucent, gray image of you," with the keyword being "image" in this case. It isn't an object;

Crawford explicitly calls it an object.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609

For what its worth, I wouldn't have called it an object either, but then I don't know what a 'magical, translucent, gray image' is either other than what it seems to mean in plain english. This is what I mean when I call it word salad. Vague, undefined terms being thrown around that require an interpretation by the player and DMs to make mechanical sense of things. I don't consider this edge cases either. I fundamentally have no idea how these things are supposed to behave.

[Valmark]

I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling either way on the Echo once moved up, but nothing in its description implies you even must summon it on the ground. Why would it necessarily fall? It "is a magical, translucent, gray image of you," with the keyword being "image" in this case. It isn't an object; it's an image that has explicit rules for attacking it and it has exactly 1 hp that it can lose to anything that would damage a creature. Again, it's very clear what it is and does, and only trying to read something into it creates ambiguity. Images are not bound to stand on the ground; I doubt anybody argues silent image can't have a floating orb of mystery hovering in the middle of nowhere, for instance.

As for the Psi Warrior's telekinetic movement, not only is it definitely over with when you conclude the movement, but you can't possibly re-do it because you need to short rest, first. Therefore, there is unambiguously no continuity of force on the target, so whatever rules apply to it apply.

Things that provide rules for how they can move that rely on them falling - such as the jumping rules for flaming sphere - and which have extant rules on falling - such as a spoon lifted into the air by Telekinetic Movement, which is still a spoon and thus falls if not supported by anything - follow those rules.

Images are not specified to fall for being unsupported anywhere. Nor are they implied to by any real-world expectations nor game mechanics. It really isn't ambiguous, but again, I wouldn't argue too strongly with a DM who ruled otherwise. I would be surprised by it, and wouldn't expect DMs to find this ambiguous, but apparently there are expectations causing people to believe something that isn't written to support those expectations means there's ambiguity due to the discrepancy between the RAW and their expectations.

This isn't an attack, mind. It's just an observation. I do believe these people are making logical errors, but it's understandable. I have made similar ones in other circumstances due to preconceptions. I just didn't have preconceptions, I guess, when it comes to the Echo.
All of this, I agree. I'd also like to point out that nobody has said why it should be an object when the text implies it's a creature.

Crawford explicitly calls it an object.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609

For what its worth, I wouldn't have called it an object either, but then I don't know what a 'magical, translucent, gray image' is either other than what it seems to mean in plain english. This is what I mean when I call it word salad. Vague, undefined terms being thrown around that require an interpretation by the player and DMs to make mechanical sense of things. I don't consider this edge cases either. I fundamentally have no idea how these things are supposed to behave.

The problem with that tweet, aside from the fact that it comes from JC, is that it's unsupported. It says that it's not a creature without explaining why and it says that it can be targeted as if anything that can be targeted has to be a creature or an object (objectively false).

The only good point is that it occupies a space- I'm unaware of something like that doing so without being an object or a creature. But it doesn't actually point to either.

[Jerrykhor]

So its an object that behaves like a creature? I mean, it has saving throws, can make attacks and everything. Sounds like a creature to me.

[Contrast]

I wouldn't fault a DM for ruling either way on the Echo once moved up, but nothing in its description implies you even must summon it on the ground. Why would it necessarily fall? It "is a magical, translucent, gray image of you," with the keyword being "image" in this case. It isn't an object; it's an image that has explicit rules for attacking it and it has exactly 1 hp that it can lose to anything that would damage a creature. Again, it's very clear what it is and does, and only trying to read something into it creates ambiguity. Images are not bound to stand on the ground; I doubt anybody argues silent image can't have a floating orb of mystery hovering in the middle of nowhere, for instance.

I think this is the crux of the matter.

Here you're saying that where it isn't specified clearly how its movement should function its an image and should use its own independent rules about behaving as an image.

Elsewhere you're telling me where it isn't specified I should assume it acts like a copy of the creator standing in that space and treat it like a version of the creator standing in that space.


So its an object that behaves like a creature? I mean, it has saving throws, can make attacks and everything. Sounds like a creature to me.

Minor correction - the Echo never makes attacks. The creator can have their attacks originate from the space that the Echo occupys under certain circumstances.

In many ways its mechanically more like a mobile portal the creator can sometimes reach/look through than a separate creature. Or maybe it isn't, who knows :smalltongue:

[quindraco]

All of this, I agree. I'd also like to point out that nobody has said why it should be an object when the text implies it's a creature.

The text implies it's basically like a mirror image, only the image isn't in your space (and then things get weird, like how it occupies its space - it occupying its space is one of its biggest sources of rules headaches). Illusions are considered to be objects in almost every context (Simulacrum is a specifically weird case with explicit rules explaining how it's weird).

In general, you should assume everything is an object until the game tells you it's a creature. You don't want to get into weird rules debates like arguing the Echo is a creature but a Mage Hand or Bigby Hand is an object. Just assume they're all objects - the game devs certainly do.

[Valmark]

The text implies it's basically like a mirror image, only the image isn't in your space (and then things get weird, like how it occupies its space - it occupying its space is one of its biggest sources of rules headaches). Illusions are considered to be objects in almost every context (Simulacrum is a specifically weird case with explicit rules explaining how it's weird).

In general, you should assume everything is an object until the game tells you it's a creature. You don't want to get into weird rules debates like arguing the Echo is a creature but a Mage Hand or Bigby Hand is an object. Just assume they're all objects - the game devs certainly do.

Where does it say that illusions are usually considered to be objects?

It really isn't like Mirror Image- the echo seems to be like a phantom of a yourself from another timeline that you can command how you want, while te MI is an illusory copy of you that mimics your every movement and stays next to you/in you.

To take your own example, Bigby's Hand (which isn't an illusion but whatever) is explicitely an object. Homewever Mage Hand and the Echo say nothing like that.

It just looks like this notion of the echo being an object (or that illusions are objects) is really made up from people's own assumptions rather then suggested by the text.
Which is fine, but one can't really call the text weird if it's their assumption that makes it so.

[Segev]

Crawford explicitly calls it an object.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609

For what its worth, I wouldn't have called it an object either, but then I don't know what a 'magical, translucent, gray image' is either other than what it seems to mean in plain english. This is what I mean when I call it word salad. Vague, undefined terms being thrown around that require an interpretation by the player and DMs to make mechanical sense of things. I don't consider this edge cases either. I fundamentally have no idea how these things are supposed to behave.It's not word salad, and Crawford making pronouncements outside of the text that have no support within the text of the rules is at best useless, and in this case creates confusion.


The only good point is that it occupies a space- I'm unaware of something like that doing so without being an object or a creature. But it doesn't actually point to either.It occupies a space because it says it does. The fact that it does so implies nothing more or less than exactly what it says.

Once again, I feel like the people saying "it's a word salad" really are saying, "I wish it had different rules, because these don't align with how I want to run it." To them, I say: house rule away! Just make it consistent in your own game.

But it isn't word salad, and it isn't ambiguous.


I think this is the crux of the matter.

Here you're saying that where it isn't specified clearly how its movement should function its an image and should use its own independent rules about behaving as an image.

Elsewhere you're telling me where it isn't specified I should assume it acts like a copy of the creator standing in that space and treat it like a version of the creator standing in that space.

Er, no? I said it's an image, because the text says it is. Where it doesn't have explicit rules saying otherwise, it behaves like any other image. There are explicit rules that state that the Echo Knight Fighter who created the Echo can perform particular actions as if he were at the Echo's location.

If the DM wished to permit more actions "as if from the Echo's location," I wouldn't fault him. If he was strict about holding it to ONLY those things explicitly called out as when and how the Echo Knight can act as if he's in the Echo's position, I wouldn't fault him. I also don't consider it ambiguous, even if I totally understand a player asking a DM for a ruling, because the player wants to know how far he can push it.

Players asking DMs for rulings doesn't mean the rules are ambiguous. Only that the player wants to know how something will work at the DM's table, and how far the rules stretch to accommodate narrative and how far narrative stretches to accommodate rules. (The latter IS also a thing: it's what a lot of theoretical optimization discussions, particularly in 3.PF, are based on.)

[Spiritchaser]

Once again, I feel like the people saying "it's a word salad" really are saying, "I wish it had different rules, because these don't align with how I want to run it." To them, I say: house rule away! Just make it consistent in your own game.

But it isn't word salad, and it isn't ambiguous.


I think a fair number of the issues stem from the fact that the mechanics are new and different. Quite a few rules in 5e are, let’s say “rough around the edges” but we’ve been playing with them for years.

Thinking back, the early shenanigans I got into with stealth, visibility and of course the “seen clearly vs seen” swap in the errata were far worse than anything that echo knight will conjure… but that’s pretty much water under the bridge at this point. We’ve all mostly agreed on how to run it, and where we haven’t agreed we’ve at least figured out how we will run things at our tables.

EchK just brings up a handful of new interactions which are detailed with relatively typical lack of precision, and players and DM’s are not all on board. Because this is one subclass, some find it easier to just reject the option altogether, which is a shame. If you like chess-like tactical options EchK is probably the as much fun as you can have with a fighter.

[Contrast]

Er, no? I said it's an image, because the text says it is. Where it doesn't have explicit rules saying otherwise, it behaves like any other image. There are explicit rules that state that the Echo Knight Fighter who created the Echo can perform particular actions as if he were at the Echo's location.

For clarity the 7th level ability does not say it allows you to perceive from the Echos location as if you were at the Echos location. It says you 'can see through your echo’s eyes and hear through its ears'.

So you tell me, what are the general rules for the senses available from the eyes and ears of an image seeing as no specific rules are given?

You've said we should assume they use the stats of the creator, despite that never being specified. You could argue 'well it only specifies where the stats are different' except it does clarify they use the same saving throws so...we're just left with a void in the rules.

You compared EchK to the Illusionist in terms of vagueness of rules. I don't really see any vagueness in Illusionist outside of perhaps exactly what constitutes a single object, whereas I doubt many games with an EchK could go a single session before a DM has to start making calls about how to deal with the Echo outside of what the rules cover clearly. Illusion spells themselves do have a lot of vagueness and I'd be inclined to agree they are also a bit of a mess mechanically however.

Its not unplayable, just much more prone to people thinking it works one way when it fact it works another or might not be clear how it works at all, more so than any other class/subclass.

I solved the problem of having no idea how trying to grapple someone through the Echo works by simply never doing that to avoid the issue. I took Sentinel thinking they'd combo, realised it didn't but didn't ask my DM to swap the feat because hey, Sentinel is still a good feat and there's still some synergy there.

[Segev]

For clarity the 7th level ability does not say it allows you to perceive from the Echos location as if you were at the Echos location. It says you 'can see through your echo’s eyes and hear through its ears'.

So you tell me, what are the general rules for the senses available from the eyes and ears of an image seeing as no specific rules are given?

You've said we should assume they use the stats of the creator, despite that never being specified. You could argue 'well it only specifies where the stats are different' except it does clarify they use the same saving throws so...we're just left with a void in the rules.That's fair. You can certainly read this in a degenerate way, and then call it messy. I could see it being clearer to say "using your own senses." But the image does have eyes and it does have ears: it's an image of you. If you see through its eyes, and it doesn't specify a set of senses other than your own and the image doesn't have any senses to assume it uses, presuming you see using your own sight senses through its eyes, and similarly regarding its ears and your hearing senses, is well within the level of "rulings, not rules" that 5e expects.

The intent seems pretty clear to me. Now, admittedly, given what the authors said later, the clear intent in the RAW is not actually what they intended in some cases, but that just means they made poor writing choices or trusted people to do the writing who had different intent than they did.


You compared EchK to the Illusionist in terms of vagueness of rules. I don't really see any vagueness in Illusionist outside of perhaps exactly what constitutes a single object, whereas I doubt many games with an EchK could go a single session before a DM has to start making calls about how to deal with the Echo outside of what the rules cover clearly. Illusion spells themselves do have a lot of vagueness and I'd be inclined to agree they are also a bit of a mess mechanically however. The most obvious point for the Illusionist being sloppy is Illusory Reality: is it still part of the illusion? Does it only allow images to be made real, or can sounds become real objects? Smells? This is somewhat mitigated by almost all higher-level illusions incorporating images, but still, it's a question. What about Illusory Reality and phantasmal force? If you make the illusory sword an illusory goblin created with phantasmal force real, does only the target of phantasmal force see it? Feel it? Pick it up and wield it? Or does the sword suddenly become visible and tangible to everyone, even though the illusion was visible only to the target?

Is an object made real as part of an illusion still also part of the illusion, or does it suddenly interact with the illusion the way things not generated by the spell are? If you make the belt your project image is wearing real, does it fall off of your illusory body, or does it remain hanging in mid-air? If you make the club being held by an illusory giant real, does the giant drop it? Or keep holding it? Could you make an illusory giant cook's wooden spoon solid and let her lift anybody standing on it up to another level?

The RAW for Illusory Reality actually never once specifies that you can do it only once per illusion. It specifies you can do it as you cast the spell, or as a bonus action on your turn while the spell is ongoing. It says they remain real for one minute. Nothing says you can't make one thing real as you cast it, then one more thing each round on your turn as a bonus action, until you're out of things you want to make real. Then refresh it after the minute is up. This makes it even more important to know whether making an object real causes it to drop through the rest of the illusion, since making things real if they drop through the illusion is something you have to be extra careful with, and if you're making a lot of things real....


Its not unplayable, just much more prone to people thinking it works one way when it fact it works another or might not be clear how it works at all, more so than any other class/subclass.

I solved the problem of having no idea how trying to grapple someone through the Echo works by simply never doing that to avoid the issue. I took Sentinel thinking they'd combo, realised it didn't but didn't ask my DM to swap the feat because hey, Sentinel is still a good feat and there's still some synergy there.I, personally, would have asked the GM if he was okay with letting it work through the image, anyway. Nothing in 5e is truly DM-independent. The cooler and more interesting the ability is in interaction with the rest of the system, the more DM rulings you're probably going to need.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Echo Knight is one of those (sub)classes that you should really sit down over tea and talk about how you think it works versus how they think that it works and come to a consensus.

I know that the first time any one of my players wants to play an illusionist or enchanter, I always invite them to stay late/come early to a session (or a new event entirely) and do that.

[quindraco]

The most obvious point for the Illusionist being sloppy is Illusory Reality: is it still part of the illusion?
Yes, in terms of things like Dispel Magic and True Seeing, but I'll address your other points below.


Does it only allow images to be made real, or can sounds become real objects? Smells?
Yes, now we're going sideways, so well done - this is indeed similar to some of the wording on Echo Knight, where the answer is fairly clear, but DMs will become uncomfortable: the answer must be yes. Nothing in the ability mentions any specific sense, so if you can make an image of a bridge become a real bridge, you must also be able to make the sound of a rock falling into a real falling rock, and the smell of a rotten fish into a real rotten fish. It's not sensory specific at all, and in order for the ability to work, it must be able to translate any sensory experience into an object.


What about Illusory Reality and phantasmal force? If you make the illusory sword an illusory goblin created with phantasmal force real, does only the target of phantasmal force see it? Feel it? Pick it up and wield it? Or does the sword suddenly become visible and tangible to everyone, even though the illusion was visible only to the target?
It becomes real, like the ability says. Like any real object, it would be visible and tangible to everyone, as that is normally how swords work. Per the wording on IR, the sword wouldn't be able to deal damage, but you could certainly wave it around.


Is an object made real as part of an illusion still also part of the illusion, or does it suddenly interact with the illusion the way things not generated by the spell are? If you make the belt your project image is wearing real, does it fall off of your illusory body, or does it remain hanging in mid-air? If you make the club being held by an illusory giant real, does the giant drop it? Or keep holding it? Could you make an illusory giant cook's wooden spoon solid and let her lift anybody standing on it up to another level?

The belt is a real belt and the club is a real club, and both behave the way you'd expect a real object to. The illusory giant and the illusory body drop their club and belt, respectively.

Much more similar to Echo Knight, now that you bring it up, is how Illusory Reality defines "object" (i.e. it doesn't), given that illusions have no general limits. Phantasmal Force is the big seller here, and IR's only limitation is a ban on damage or hurting creatures - other than that, it basically makes the illusionist omnipotent, which is likely to make DMs uncomfortable.

A lightweight example: you use Phantasmal Force to manifest a gullywumpus, an object you just made up, which is a 12 inches by 8 inches by 4 inches brick that is normally just a brick but when it touches stone, the stone turns into wood. Unless your DM hastily overrides some poorly written RAW, you can now permanently turn stone into wood using a second level spell. Phantasmal Force isn't restricted to objects that actually exist in the real world, and then IR can make them real.

[Ettina]

Honestly, illusory reality is a lot more ambiguous to me than manifest echo. Manifest echo is at least an echo of you, and therefore you can just say that anything that isn't explicitly stated just works the same way it would if the echo was you.

[Nagog]

He will fudge action economy rules to let a rogue jump around and get an auto-crit on an unconscious enemy to save a turn, but won't allow the echo to get an auto-crit because the rules say "the attacker" has to be within 5 feet.

Doesn't the specific wording state that the attacks you make with your echo are made "as though you were standing in it's place", or is that just for the specific bit about their Attack of Opportunity? Imo, Echo Knight is one of the few really great Fighter subclasses, ruling against it consistently would turn me off to the class at large in a big way.