Can the Echo Knight's echo go through walls?

[Greywander]

Apparently, "move 30 feet in any direction" includes flying, so I'm wondering if the same logic allows going through walls? One strike against this is that the echo occupies its space, and thus might only be able to move through/exist in unoccupied spaces in the absence of a trait saying otherwise.

The reason it can fly, by the way, is because it's an object, not a creature, and thus has no move speed. Thus, it's not bound by normal movement rules, but by the rules of the ability. The ability says you can move it in any direction, and "up" is a direction. "Through that wall" would also be a direction.

[Composer99]

I would say it's down to DM ruling. If you're asking in your capacity as DM... it's your call, and I don't think there's a lot of good guidance.

For what it's worth, 5e defines targeting in a way that might be helpful in the rules for spellcasting:

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.

(This rule doesn't require that you be able to see the target.)

However:
- That's obviously a rule for spellcasting, and it's DM call whether it's extensible to other situations.
- As far as I'm aware, incorporeal creatures that can travel through walls also occupy their spaces, so the echo occupying its space isn't necessarily helpful.

As for why you might think the echo can go through walls, the way it's defined as "a magical, translucent, gray image of you" does come across as basically insubstantial/incorporeal.

If a player asked me, I'd honestly have to say I'm stumped, and it's time for a coin flip. (Or die roll since this is D&D.) But seeing as what text there is that describes the echo leans towards insubstantial, I might weight the odds a bit in favour of "yes".

[Jerrykhor]

Why would it be able to go through walls? Nothing suggests that its incorporeal.

You said it yourself, it occupies a space and cannot share its space with other. That pretty much gives away that its a solid thing.

I don't see why movement or creature type has anything to do with it.

[Greywander]

- As far as I'm aware, incorporeal creatures that can travel through walls also occupy their spaces, so the echo occupying its space isn't necessarily helpful.
But those creatures have an ability that specifically allows them to go through walls.

Keep in mind that the Echo Knight can swap places with the echo, and doesn't need to see where they're going, nor do they need to be able to see where they're moving the echo to. If the echo can go through walls, so can the Echo Knight. So it would be a pretty big buff to the feature if it worked that way.


Why would it be able to go through walls?
Because it by default objects can't move, so there are no default rules for movement. The only rules for movement for the echo are the ones written into this ability. And they don't say either way.

[Jerrykhor]

Well sure, Echo Knight has one of the worst written abilities in terms of clarity. But still, I think strict reading applies here, and nothing implies it is incorporeal.

Moving upwards is a direction. Moving towards the wall is a direction. But moving through walls? That's an ability. If its not stated it can do, then it can't.

And just because its not a creature doesn't mean its an object. It can make saving throws (which objects can't). But I still don't know what it is in terms of rules.

[Composer99]

- As far as I'm aware, incorporeal creatures that can travel through walls also occupy their spaces, so the echo occupying its space isn't necessarily helpful.



But those creatures have an ability that specifically allows them to go through walls.

Keep in mind that the Echo Knight can swap places with the echo, and doesn't need to see where they're going, nor do they need to be able to see where they're moving the echo to. If the echo can go through walls, so can the Echo Knight. So it would be a pretty big buff to the feature if it worked that way.


Technically, you're not wrong on either score. But at bottom the text of the ability just doesn't say one way or another about moving the echo through walls or similar features, so I'm looking at related concepts in the rules for guidance. The fact that the related concept doesn't map exactly is kind of... neither here nor there, really: I'm using it for guidance, not as a premise in a strict syllogism.

[Amnestic]

The echo knight occupies its space. If it could move through objects, it would have the Incorporeal feature that ghosts and similar creatures have. It does not.

[Greywander]

Yeah, I'm leaning toward "unclear, but probably shouldn't". Sometimes, regardless of RAW, there's only one sensible ruling, and everyone can agree on it.

It's still a pretty cool ability, and still allows you to teleport through walls if you can get the echo to the other side. You can actually summon a familiar to the other side of a wall, see through their senses, then create the echo as a BA on the other side of the wall, and use that to teleport through.

[Spiritchaser]

I somewhat object to statement that the echo knight is especially badly written in the context of 5e.

In the context of 5e, I’d say it was only moderately poor.

Relative to most illusion spells or the darkness spell, aaaaand stealth… the echo knight rules are a shining beacon of clarity.

[heavyfuel]

Sure. Let martials have nice things. Let players think outside of the box.

[Greywander]

Sure. Let martials have nice things. Let players think outside of the box.
Well, this is a question about RAW. Anyone is free to rule as they please, but RAW is typically the position most DMs default to. Understanding RAW helps us set our expectations when approaching our DM, or players. RAW is the default, while a deviation from RAW requires a conscious ruling from the DM. In other words, unless the DM has told us otherwise (or unless we, as the DM, have told our players otherwise), we/they can assume something works according to the RAW. Though in ambiguous edge cases like this, it's best to consult your DM.

[Spiritchaser]

Sure. Let martials have nice things. Let players think outside of the box.

I strongly agree with the philosophy (though not the specific application here)

I have not tried, or really seen the rune knight, but notwithstanding that knowledge gap, I’d say Echo knight is by far the most tactically interesting single class pure martial in 5e, and a big part of the most interesting multiclass combo.

This kind of design philosophy is exactly what we need more of.

Could things be clearer? Sure. In this case should echos go through solids?

I’d say the rules say no, and I’d say no too

But I still like your answer

[NeonAnodyne]

The echo knight occupies its space. If it could move through objects, it would have the Incorporeal feature that ghosts and similar creatures have. It does not.

This would be my interpretation as well.

For instance, the 6th level feature of the Shadow Magic subclass of Sorcerer (XGE): "Hound of Ill Omen" states "[The hound] can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. The hound takes 5 force damage if it ends its turn inside an object."

The disinclusion of a similar rule regarding Echos makes me believe that Echos possessing an intrinsic incorporeal form was not intended.

[heavyfuel]

Well, this is a question about RAW. Anyone is free to rule as they please, but RAW is typically the position most DMs default to.

Okay, but when RAW is ambiguous - as it is in this case and as it so often is in 5e - and the ruling falls upon the DM, I'm more in favor of permissive rulings for things that aren't spells.


The echo knight occupies its space. If it could move through objects, it would have the Incorporeal feature that ghosts and similar creatures have. It does not.

The echo isn't a creature though, so asking it to have a feature, like Incorporeal, is silly.

[Amnestic]

The echo isn't a creature though, so asking it to have a feature, like Incorporeal, is silly.

Not at all. It doesn't need to be called 'Incorporeal', but as noted with the Hound of Ill-Omen it would have a feature that essentially does what Incorporeal does. If they wanted it to move through walls, it would be spelled out. It's not.

Edit: And also on it being an object vs. creature, that's not spelled out in the text. It being an object is from a Crawford twitterpost, not RAW. Relying on it not stating either way is likewise incongruous when we look at Artillerist cannon, which states explicitly it is an object.

[PhantomSoul]

Not at all. It doesn't need to be called 'Incorporeal', but as noted with the Hound of Ill-Omen it would have a feature that essentially does what Incorporeal does. If they wanted it to move through walls, it would be spelled out. It's not.

Mhm -- and if it needs to have special status, it could be called a "property" to be consistent... but regardless, it would go against default expectations for it to be incorporeal based on what we know (without them specifying otherwise)

[heavyfuel]

Not at all. It doesn't need to be called 'Incorporeal', but as noted with the Hound of Ill-Omen it would have a feature that essentially does what Incorporeal does. If they wanted it to move through walls, it would be spelled out. It's not.

Edit: And also on it being an object vs. creature, that's not spelled out in the text. It being an object is from a Crawford twitterpost, not RAW. Relying on it not stating either way is likewise incongruous when we look at Artillerist cannon, which states explicitly it is an object.

"Any direction" can mean "down", just like it can mean "up". If the Echo can "fly" (which it definitely can, since it can go up), it can also "burrow" by going down. "Any direction" is pretty unambiguous and spelled out if you ask me.

If the echo can "burrow" through the ground, why couldn't it also move through walls?

As for the edit, I never said it was an object, just that it isn't a creature (by RAW). Which makes it ambiguous, thus, I maintain that you should rule in favor of giving martials nice things

[Greywander]

Edit: And also on it being an object vs. creature, that's not spelled out in the text. It being an object is from a Crawford twitterpost, not RAW. Relying on it not stating either way is likewise incongruous when we look at Artillerist cannon, which states explicitly it is an object.

As for the edit, I never said it was an object, just that it isn't a creature (by RAW). Which makes it ambiguous, thus, I maintain that you should rule in favor of giving martials nice things
Huh. I thought it said the echo was an object, but it doesn't. It calls it an "image". So it seems it's neither a creature nor an object. Good job, WotC.

[PhantomSoul]

"Any direction" can mean "down", just like it can mean "up". If the Echo can "fly" (which it definitely can, since it can go up), it can also "burrow" by going down. "Any direction" is pretty unambiguous and spelled out if you ask me.

If the echo can "burrow" through the ground, why couldn't it also move through walls?

I don't follow that logic -- it's already a stretch to say that "any direction" means "ignoring barriers" so that burrowing is guaranteed separately from being able to dig, but burrowing being possible for a context where digging doesn't work (e.g. a solid stone slab) is expected to fail (it ain't earth glide or something more potent!) and I just as much wouldn't expect you to be able to go through a solid wall.

There's a difference between being able to move any direction (barring barriers) and teleporting to a space in any direction from you within the same range (with no visibility requirement, at that!). It being an image is the only open question... and it's still meant to be you, so it's unclear.

Do the rules even say corporeal creatures can't walk through walls at any time without spells, special features/traits, or other effects active?


EDIT for new post:


Huh. I thought it said the echo was an object, but it doesn't. It calls it an "image". So it seems it's neither a creature nor an object. Good job, WotC.

That's a change, as I recall!

[Amnestic]

"Any direction" can mean "down", just like it can mean "up". If the Echo can "fly" (which it definitely can, since it can go up), it can also "burrow" by going down. "Any direction" is pretty unambiguous and spelled out if you ask me.

It can fly, sure. But it occupies it space. If creatures can't pass through it (and they can't, because it occupies its space), why would objects be able to?

[heavyfuel]

I don't follow that logic -- it's already a stretch to say that "any direction" means "ignoring barriers" .

I agree that it might be a stretch, but my main point (for like the third time) is that since the ruling is ambiguous, you should rule in favor of letting your players do creative things, especially those whose characters lack the plethora of ways of interacting with the world that spellcasters have, ie, let martials have nice things.



Do the rules even say corporeal creatures can't walk through walls at any time without spells, special features/traits, or other effects active?

I'm pretty sure there is a general rule that the Material Plane works much like the real world in terms of physics. It could be from a previous edition, though.


It can fly, sure. But it occupies it space. If creatures can't pass through it (and they can't, because it occupies its space), why would objects be able to?

Don't Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures also occupy spaces? It's no different. Occupying a space has nothing to do with a creature's thing's ability to move through solid objects.

[PhantomSoul]

I agree that it might be a stretch, but my main point (for like the third time) is that since the ruling is ambiguous, you should rule in favor of letting your players do creative things, especially those whose characters lack the plethora of ways of interacting with the world that spellcasters have, ie, let martials have nice things.

I'm pretty sure there is a general rule that the Material Plane works much like the real world in terms of physics. It could be from a previous edition, though.

Don't Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures also occupy spaces? It's no different. Occupying a space has nothing to do with a creature's thing's ability to move through solid objects.

These are actually all exactly pointing me to think going through walls shouldn't work, rather than should, tbh!
(Minus martials usually getting the short end of the stick, but here the martial getting that really just doubles down on caster stuff in many cases anyway -- images are a lot easier to make and more common for them, "any direction" types of phrasings too. Consistency, narrative value and predictability matter a lot to me for games, and this just falls flat for me. That's not to say excuses can't exist to twist it narratively, but that's something with huge implications for what you're going to fluff that echo as being to make it so that it breaks baseline world functionality -- parallel universe that somehow is completely empty? ethereal being so maybe it should be affected by anything that matters for the ethereal? past/future self that therefore you have to project that the wall simply doesn't exist at some other time when your character is there?)

[Jerrykhor]

I agree that it might be a stretch, but my main point (for like the third time) is that since the ruling is ambiguous, you should rule in favor of letting your players do creative things, especially those whose characters lack the plethora of ways of interacting with the world that spellcasters have, ie, let martials have nice things.


I strongly disagree with that. Allowing the Echo to go through walls would mean no physical barriers can stop them, since the Echos (and the seeing through its eyes, and swapping with it) all cost 0 resource.

And Echo Knight is already on the higher tier of 'having nice things'. They don't need more help. Just give the martials that actually need nice things, and not rely on ambiguous rulings.

[Amnestic]

Don't Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures also occupy spaces? It's no different. Occupying a space has nothing to do with a creature's thing's ability to move through solid objects.

Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have explicit text saying they can pass through objects and rules related to it. Echo Knights do not, that's been my point since the start of this discussion.

Echo Knights do not need a boost in comparison to other Fighter subclasses.

[heavyfuel]

I strongly disagree with that. Allowing the Echo to go through walls would mean no physical barriers can stop them, since the Echos (and the seeing through its eyes, and swapping with it) all cost 0 resource.

It may have no resource cost, but it has a GARGANTUAN opportunity cost, meaning, only Fighters and only Fighters of this particulars subclass can do it.

Costing 0 resource is very, very different from it having no cost at all.

The player paid for this ability, not with refreshable resources, but with something that is far more permanent.

[NeonAnodyne]

The player paid for this ability, not with refreshable resources, but with something that is far more permanent.

Forgive me for asking, but, are you referring to the three levels of Fighter it takes to obtain the 'Manifest Echo' subclass feature? Or something more specific?

Vis a vis multiclassing, I would not necessarily call this a significant loss of resources at all.

[heavyfuel]

Forgive me for asking, but, are you referring to the three levels of Fighter it takes to obtain the 'Manifest Echo' subclass feature? Or something more specific?

Vis a vis multiclassing, I would not necessarily call this a significant loss of resources at all.

If it weren't a significant loss, you'd be seeing a lot more builds that go Fighter 3 for Manifest Echo (although you need Fighter 7 for the ability to see through the Echo's eyes, which some folk have mentioned).

Dipping Hexblade 1 or Cleric 1 is usually considered very powerful, and yet there are significant downsides to both. Going full 3 levels into a class is a very significant loss.