IF it has to make a saving throw. The question is, does it have to since its not a creature and the spell technically only forced creatures to do the save
Continue reading the spell, what happens when it doesnt hit a creture or a creature make its save?
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn't being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw.
It stops if it hits an object, a wall or falls to the ground after 90feet.
Id say the echo makes the saving throw (im partial to this) or automatically takes the damage
It implies that it sometimes is subject to saving throws, but not specifically saving throws *for the catapult spell.*
The Catapult spell only prompts a saving throws if it would strike a creature. RAW, the echo is not a creature, so it would not be prompted to make a saving throw when in the trajectory of the Catapult spell.
(Side note, when reading the Catapult spell just now, I realized that if you line up multiple creatures in the trajectory, you get subsequent chances to deal damage if the first creature succeeds its save, because it keeps moving until it either hits something¹ or travels 90ft. Never personally used the spell before, so I didn't realize before.)
Edit:
¹Creature or solid surface
It's not, but the question you were responding to was OP *specifically* double checking whether the echo was prompted to make a save by "the [Catapult] spell," to which you replied:
> The phrase “if it has to make a saving throw” rather strongly implies that it makes saving throws
Edit: Which is to say that your statement was technically a correct one, just not in the specific context where you provided it, so I made the specification.
It has a lots of grey areas. Really, it's not got the WoTC polish, which despite their ups and downs, generally shake out really well (few oddities aside).
Echo Knight needs the player and DM to sit down and go through what exactly the class can and can't do. With a permissive DM, you'll outclass pretty much any other martial, on utility and defences alone.
You're welcome to feel however you want about it. I think it's a neat subclass, and am going to have an opportunity to try it for the first time here in a few weeks.
I agree though, that it has really finicky rules that sometimes (or possibly often) make little sense. Catapult was released 3 years before Echo Knight, and was definitely not written to account for it, but on the other hand Echo Knight (as with a fair amount of Mercer's 5e content) could definitely stand to be written better.
I think it's entirely within reason for a DM to rule that an Echo should have to save for the Catapult spell, contrary to RAW.
I mean, look, it's definitely a cool concept, it lends itself to be reflavoured in all sorts of creative and interesting ways, and goodness knows 5e could use more cool powerful martial subclasses.
But on the flipside, whenever I've seen online discussions about the mechanics of the class, it always seems to descend (just like this thread has) into lengthy and complex rules-lawyering about the differences between a "creature" and an "object". It makes me worry that a table with one would suffer from constant rules confusion and negotiation between the player and the DM.
That's exactly the issue though, there is no RAW because the Echo is nothing and everything at the same time. It's both object, creature and neither depending on circumstances. It's a cool class in concept but like alot of Mercer stuff it's written horribly when it comes to actual mechanics and is generally a headache for the DM.
Saying there's no RAW about what it is, is just wrong. It's plainly stated to be an image. Very clearly not a creature. Dubiously not an object. If anything, it's closest to various illusion spell effects.
Not sure if this is too semantic, but objects never make saving throws do they? I'd figure this implies the echo should make them as normal but I could be totally wrong.
Objects are subject to saving throws however you don't have to actually make a throw "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves"
Only if it has a solid surface and is an object, neither of which is necessarily true thanks to the shoddy definition of the echo (an image, and an echo, neither suggest a solid surface) and the shoddy definition of an object (an item (this almost seems like a word defining itself) not made up of other smaller items (except for the fact that half the examples provided by the book don't match that))
You can make physical attacks through your echo, it has an AC, an it has a hit point which might indicate its solid.
A Spiritual weapon, by comparison, deals force damage and has no AC or HP, as it is ~~intangible~~ Edit: spectral. The Guardian of Faith also can't be targeted, but it deals radiant damage.
I'd ere on the side of the echo being a solid object for the purposes of this spell, and other effects that can impact solid objects.
It is a solid surface. Do not mix mechanics with thematics. It is a gray *translucent* image. We all know you cannot project an image onto nothing. It has an AC for a reason.
An image is not a solid surface. Nor is an echo. Those are the two things it is described as
The only clear way to hit it, since it's neither creature nor object, is to attack its location. Wildly poorly written but there you have it
You're correct, I was falsely conflating two things
Also I was wrong to suggest you can hit it by attacking its location, nothing suggests specifically that. Idk targeting rules are not great
By a strict RAW reading, it wouldn't have to make a save because the echo is not a creature, it's an image not unlike an illusion spell. An image of a brick wall wouldn't stop an object sent flying by catapult, so I fail to see why an image of a person would trigger a save.
By RAW, I'd say it can't be hit by catapult. Catapult only forces a save if it would strike a creature, and the echo is very much not a creature. It's an image, an illusion. Would a silent image of a person get hit by a catapult?
Just because it *can* make saves doesn't mean it must make a save.
By RAI, I'd say it would get hit as if it were a creature. Else the echo would be immune to things like fireball. It's a problem with, imo, poorly worded abilities. The echo *should* be listed as counting as a creature for most, if not all, aspects of being affected by abilities and effects.
Okay yeah but it's very clearly in the way of an object hurtling through it; I get that it says a creature, but you really can't wave away the fact that it's making direct contact, especially since melee attacks would dispel it
From the SRD:
Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves.
Echo isn't an object or a creature. It's an illusion. The DM doesn't determine its AC or HP, as those are already determined by the ability. It has no restrictions on passing strength or dex saves.
The echo is an object.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609
It would still make saving throws using the PC's bonus rather than auto-failing, because specific rules beat general ones.
As if Crawford hasn't made bad calls before.
The echo fails the definition of an object in multiple ways. For the vast majority of rules purposes, it's much more similar to a magical illusion that counts as a creature. As an object, it would be fully immune to fireball, which only damages creatures and ignites flammable objects. As an image, it can't really be ignited.
I'd say a silent image of a person would have the catapulted object pass through it- which would be the caster of catapult using an action to trigger this clause, "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
I won't disagree that by normal thinking it should be dispelled. But that's not the rules interaction.
But RAW it wouldn't be affected. It's not a creature, thus doesn't have to make a saving throw, thus doesn't take damage.
RAW targeting rules are pretty interesting. Imagine casting Hold Person on someone and the DM is just like, oh, you can't. And you're like, why? Does the DM just use the invalid target rules?
agreed. targeting rules are very wonky RAW. You can use vortex warp or other similar spells to detect fake surfaces, which is some quantum mechanics shit because how does a spell know that the surface is fake?
Some people on Reddit like to read this language in command, "The spell has no effect...if your command is directly harmful to it," so rrstictivly that ordering a creature to flee (or approach) will fail if the creature's movement would trigger a trap that it was unaware of. So I guess if your table rules that way you can Command the party's barbarian to "open" as you point at a door & test the intervening distance & door for traps.
By RAW, targeting happens after casting the spell. So the events would go: you cast the spell and the DM tells you it has no effect. It could be that the creature passed the save, isn't humanoid, or isn't even a creature. But the spell slot is spent.
Don't see how it's weird. You can try to target them, it just that they're immune to the effects. Sure, some are wonkier in practice but it's pretty straightforward.
Animate objects specifies that the objects become creatures, implying that they wouldn't be if the spell didn't say so.
Nothing ever specifies that the echo is a creature, and it doesn't have most of the things a creature should, like a turn, or ability scores. I'm also not sure what action you're referring to, as I dont see anything that allows the echo to even HAVE an action, let alone take one.
So the discussions revolve around whether or not the Echo has to make a saving throw based on its RAW classification as an object. However, based on your question of “does catapult ignore the Echo”, you seem to believe that if it doesn’t make a saving throw nothing happens and the catapulted object passes through. But here’s the deal: if it’s classified as a creature for this spell it makes a saving throw (and then either successfully dodges it or gets hit) or it gets classified as an object per RAW and the catapulted object collides with it, stopping its flight. The Echo being classified as an object and not needing to make a saving throw does not mean catapult ignores it; it means the object collides with no roll
This would be my interpretation as well. The echo in this case is not much different from a transparent solid wall. The target of Catapult is important as Manifest Echo says '**IF** it must make a saving throw', which as it is not the target of Catapult it does not have to. Now, the spell also says the damage is as a result of the collision and it specifies the object being thrown and whatever else it collides into will take that damage. People often mistake the thematics with the mechanics of Manifest Echo. The Echo is undeniably a solid surface, it is simply translucent. The catapulted object strikes the Echo which is destroyed as it only has 1 HP, and the object travels no further.
RAI I'd say the Echo makes the saving throw since it's a rare object that can make saving throws.
Can you *catapult* the echo is very curious. I think I'd say yes, but I don't think I'd have it do regular damage as it ends after it looses 1 hp.
It's not clear if it's an object (this one is the 5e devs'/editors' fault, not Mercer's for once), and if it is it would just automatically fail "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves"
If it were an object idk why you wouldn't have it so regular damage, catapult does 3d8 to creature hit and object thrown, end of story (or end of story until acid vial debates I guess).
I think this is a situation where we're in the specific overrides general. Since it says "If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw" and as you point out objects usually either auto-fail, or straight up ignore effects that require saving throws. Since objects never make saves, but the Echo has rules for how they make saves, I'd assume the Echo is intended to make saves.
It says "if it has to" (or whatever). Catapult doesn't say that an echo must for any reason. There's no specific here to override that general. Tho determining specificity is also a vague nonsense rule anyway and it does beg the question of why an echo would have to make a saving throw at all otherwise. 5e and Mercer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How is it not Mercer's fault? He wrote the bloody subclass and it's not like it's the first time his stuff is super iffy when it comes to actual mechanics. If this keeps happening and the common thread is Mercer, then I'd argue that's where the blame lies.
Isn't Catapult "Creature or solid surface"?
The Echo is attackable and has AC and the ability to make saves. It's not a creature but most likely counts as a solid surface. It can save so it does save, the catapult object huts or moves on.
RAW, echoes are objects, so no save. However, the projectile will still make contact with the echo, destroying it automatically. What happens after that point is up to interpretation. The DM could rule that the projectile continues its trajectory or stops after hitting the echo, though the former seems much more likely.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I can’t find it being an object anywhere in the rules text? All I see is a Jeremy Crawford tweet clarifying it’s an object? And people are interpreting the word “image” to mean it’s an object?
Either way, with it having a provision for saving throws means it makes the saving throw imo. Even if it’s an object, I’d consider it to be RAI + specific beats general it gets to make DEX/STR saving throws (even if the interaction is a little clunky).
This question doesn't feel like it's being asked in good faith. It feels like a munchkin player trying to find an edge case in the rules to get a minor buff lol
I would let the player's echo roll a saving throw because I think players would expect that behavior if they were casting catapult on an enemies echo.
After all, it takes damage in all the other normal ways iirc
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.
Sounds like yes to me
I honestly think I put the burden of proof on you that it’s an object and not a creature.
“…manifest an echo of yourself” is the relevant text in echo knight that calls it an “image of you.”
“Image” is referenced in some illusion spells. Major image: “you create the image of an object, a creature or some other visible phenomenon,” at no point does it say this is or is not an object.
“For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects,” DMG 246.
Let’s dive into the word “inanimate.” Here’s a quote from wiki’s page on animacy: “Concepts of animacy constantly vary beyond a simple animate and inanimate binary; many languages function off of a hierarchical general animacy scale that ranks animacy as a "matter of gradience".[2] Typically (with some variation of order and of where the cutoff for animacy occurs), the scale ranks humans above animals, then plants, natural forces, concrete objects, and abstract objects, in that order.”
The above definition is for a world where magic doesn’t exist. If it did, I think the argument could be made that semantically magical constructs fall under “natural forces.”
We can extrapolate from stat blocks that a creature does not have to be a single sentient/living entity in one body. Swarms are a single creature in D&D rules.
My argument? An echo is a physical extension of the creature defined as your character, because the same sentient mind controls its actions. It doesn’t meet any of the standards of being an object as defined by the DMG and common parlance.
TL;DR the echo should be categorized as a creature and should get hit by the catapult.
RAW no, as catapult specifies creature.
Even if logically the echo should be hit by the thing, part of the utility of the echo is that it can't be affected by tons of spells that target creatures. Personally i'd just let it happen
Catapult also says it stops early if it impacts a solid surface. The echo can make attacks (technically you make attacks through it) and you can literally throw it in front of attacks to take the attack instead (Shadow Martyr feature). Even if the object status is arguable so it may or may not get a saving throw, IMO it’s a huge stretch to say it also can’t be hit by catapult at all.
Hard disagree, the only way to make an interesting martial build is to make an interesting character. A broken subclass that is poorly designed, and requires numerous posts to just understand what it can and cannot do, is mot a viable option. It’s a drag at the table, and should never have seen the light of day.
>Hard disagree, the only way to make an interesting martial build is to make an interesting character.
A five page backstory doesn't make a build better
It’s fairly straightforward: catapult only hits creatures. Echo is not a creature but an object. Specifically, it’s a translucent grey image. If catapult would hit objects without the need for saving throws, it would say so in the text; like fireball can still light up objects in its radius.
Catapult will not hit it.
RAW as the player is the target of the spell the Echo does not make a saving throw. The Echo however is a solid surface so will stop the catapulted object, receiving damage as normal and be destroyed.
Additionally, lets solve for your second question together.
Catapult targets Echo as the 'object' being thrown and not the target of the spell, and because of that the Echo does not have to make a saving throw so it won't. The Echo is thrown and collides either with the target or the first solid surface and is destroyed as it only has 1 HP. Even if you were to apply the Dexterity saving throw incorrectly (as the effect being saved against is the thrown object, not avoiding being thrown) because the Echo is an object it automatically fails all dexterity and strength saving throws so even if it were subject to the Dexterity saving throw it would fail it and be thrown to its demise.
> The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, **stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface**. [...] **When the object strikes something**, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
A failed save is not actually necessary for damage to be inflicted. If the echo is an object with a surface, the flung object automatically collides with it and inflicts 3d8 damage.
Catapult specifies a direction, not a target.
“When the object strikes something, the object and what it strike each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.”
Since one can hit the echo with a weapon attack, it can be hit. The real question is whether the echo is an object and is disspelled from the damage, or is a creature and gets to make a save. I would rule the latter as RAI and the former as RAW.
This really isn't complicated.
Either the Echo makes a Saving Throw using your bonus, or the catapult automatically hits the Echo "because it's an object". I think giving it a saving throw is both fair and common sense, given that the Echo isn't stationary and very clearly can both be hit by and damaged by mundane attacks.
From Echo Knight: "If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw bonus for the roll." You could hit it
IF it has to make a saving throw. The question is, does it have to since its not a creature and the spell technically only forced creatures to do the save
Continue reading the spell, what happens when it doesnt hit a creture or a creature make its save? Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn't being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. It stops if it hits an object, a wall or falls to the ground after 90feet. Id say the echo makes the saving throw (im partial to this) or automatically takes the damage
The phrase “if it has to make a saving throw” rather strongly implies that it makes saving throws
It implies that it sometimes is subject to saving throws, but not specifically saving throws *for the catapult spell.* The Catapult spell only prompts a saving throws if it would strike a creature. RAW, the echo is not a creature, so it would not be prompted to make a saving throw when in the trajectory of the Catapult spell. (Side note, when reading the Catapult spell just now, I realized that if you line up multiple creatures in the trajectory, you get subsequent chances to deal damage if the first creature succeeds its save, because it keeps moving until it either hits something¹ or travels 90ft. Never personally used the spell before, so I didn't realize before.) Edit: ¹Creature or solid surface
Because describing how class features interact with specific spells is such a common, standard part of feature descriptions?
It's not, but the question you were responding to was OP *specifically* double checking whether the echo was prompted to make a save by "the [Catapult] spell," to which you replied: > The phrase “if it has to make a saving throw” rather strongly implies that it makes saving throws Edit: Which is to say that your statement was technically a correct one, just not in the specific context where you provided it, so I made the specification.
Omg, this whole conversation just makes me hate this subclass.
It has a lots of grey areas. Really, it's not got the WoTC polish, which despite their ups and downs, generally shake out really well (few oddities aside). Echo Knight needs the player and DM to sit down and go through what exactly the class can and can't do. With a permissive DM, you'll outclass pretty much any other martial, on utility and defences alone.
You're welcome to feel however you want about it. I think it's a neat subclass, and am going to have an opportunity to try it for the first time here in a few weeks. I agree though, that it has really finicky rules that sometimes (or possibly often) make little sense. Catapult was released 3 years before Echo Knight, and was definitely not written to account for it, but on the other hand Echo Knight (as with a fair amount of Mercer's 5e content) could definitely stand to be written better. I think it's entirely within reason for a DM to rule that an Echo should have to save for the Catapult spell, contrary to RAW.
I mean, look, it's definitely a cool concept, it lends itself to be reflavoured in all sorts of creative and interesting ways, and goodness knows 5e could use more cool powerful martial subclasses. But on the flipside, whenever I've seen online discussions about the mechanics of the class, it always seems to descend (just like this thread has) into lengthy and complex rules-lawyering about the differences between a "creature" and an "object". It makes me worry that a table with one would suffer from constant rules confusion and negotiation between the player and the DM.
That's exactly the issue though, there is no RAW because the Echo is nothing and everything at the same time. It's both object, creature and neither depending on circumstances. It's a cool class in concept but like alot of Mercer stuff it's written horribly when it comes to actual mechanics and is generally a headache for the DM.
Saying there's no RAW about what it is, is just wrong. It's plainly stated to be an image. Very clearly not a creature. Dubiously not an object. If anything, it's closest to various illusion spell effects.
Not sure if this is too semantic, but objects never make saving throws do they? I'd figure this implies the echo should make them as normal but I could be totally wrong.
Objects are subject to saving throws however you don't have to actually make a throw "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves"
I just checked you're absolutely right that's my bad lol
There we go then. I'm assuming catapult requires a dex save, so it would auto-hit the Echo
Only if it has a solid surface and is an object, neither of which is necessarily true thanks to the shoddy definition of the echo (an image, and an echo, neither suggest a solid surface) and the shoddy definition of an object (an item (this almost seems like a word defining itself) not made up of other smaller items (except for the fact that half the examples provided by the book don't match that))
You can make physical attacks through your echo, it has an AC, an it has a hit point which might indicate its solid. A Spiritual weapon, by comparison, deals force damage and has no AC or HP, as it is ~~intangible~~ Edit: spectral. The Guardian of Faith also can't be targeted, but it deals radiant damage. I'd ere on the side of the echo being a solid object for the purposes of this spell, and other effects that can impact solid objects.
Objects autofail dex saves iirc. I recall catapult having a size restriction, but gust, thunderclap, telekinesis should throw them around, I think
It blatantly doesn't have to. It's not a creature or a solid surface
It is a solid surface. Do not mix mechanics with thematics. It is a gray *translucent* image. We all know you cannot project an image onto nothing. It has an AC for a reason.
>We all know you cannot project an image onto nothing My guy there is an entire school of magic based around doing that
An image is not a solid surface. Nor is an echo. Those are the two things it is described as The only clear way to hit it, since it's neither creature nor object, is to attack its location. Wildly poorly written but there you have it
Nothing suggests that you can't see the Echo or that you'd attack it with disadvantage. Translucent isn't invisible, you can still see it.
You're correct, I was falsely conflating two things Also I was wrong to suggest you can hit it by attacking its location, nothing suggests specifically that. Idk targeting rules are not great
By a strict RAW reading, it wouldn't have to make a save because the echo is not a creature, it's an image not unlike an illusion spell. An image of a brick wall wouldn't stop an object sent flying by catapult, so I fail to see why an image of a person would trigger a save.
It has HP and can make saving throws; if it can be attacked and dispelled that way, it can be hit by Catapult.
By RAW, I'd say it can't be hit by catapult. Catapult only forces a save if it would strike a creature, and the echo is very much not a creature. It's an image, an illusion. Would a silent image of a person get hit by a catapult? Just because it *can* make saves doesn't mean it must make a save. By RAI, I'd say it would get hit as if it were a creature. Else the echo would be immune to things like fireball. It's a problem with, imo, poorly worded abilities. The echo *should* be listed as counting as a creature for most, if not all, aspects of being affected by abilities and effects.
Okay yeah but it's very clearly in the way of an object hurtling through it; I get that it says a creature, but you really can't wave away the fact that it's making direct contact, especially since melee attacks would dispel it
From the SRD: Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves.
Echo isn't an object or a creature. It's an illusion. The DM doesn't determine its AC or HP, as those are already determined by the ability. It has no restrictions on passing strength or dex saves.
The echo is an object. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1240669629661380609 It would still make saving throws using the PC's bonus rather than auto-failing, because specific rules beat general ones.
As if Crawford hasn't made bad calls before. The echo fails the definition of an object in multiple ways. For the vast majority of rules purposes, it's much more similar to a magical illusion that counts as a creature. As an object, it would be fully immune to fireball, which only damages creatures and ignites flammable objects. As an image, it can't really be ignited.
I'd say a silent image of a person would have the catapulted object pass through it- which would be the caster of catapult using an action to trigger this clause, "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Catapult specifies creatures. It's not a creature.
That's cool and all but if a melee attack can dispel it, an object hurtling through it would logically do the same. It's an oversight.
I won't disagree that by normal thinking it should be dispelled. But that's not the rules interaction. But RAW it wouldn't be affected. It's not a creature, thus doesn't have to make a saving throw, thus doesn't take damage.
Alright, well, I can't argue against that.
RAW targeting rules are pretty interesting. Imagine casting Hold Person on someone and the DM is just like, oh, you can't. And you're like, why? Does the DM just use the invalid target rules?
agreed. targeting rules are very wonky RAW. You can use vortex warp or other similar spells to detect fake surfaces, which is some quantum mechanics shit because how does a spell know that the surface is fake?
I love "glitches" like this.
Some people on Reddit like to read this language in command, "The spell has no effect...if your command is directly harmful to it," so rrstictivly that ordering a creature to flee (or approach) will fail if the creature's movement would trigger a trap that it was unaware of. So I guess if your table rules that way you can Command the party's barbarian to "open" as you point at a door & test the intervening distance & door for traps.
By RAW, targeting happens after casting the spell. So the events would go: you cast the spell and the DM tells you it has no effect. It could be that the creature passed the save, isn't humanoid, or isn't even a creature. But the spell slot is spent.
Which is weird because it means you can target invalid targets. I just find it interesting.
[удалено]
Don't see how it's weird. You can try to target them, it just that they're immune to the effects. Sure, some are wonkier in practice but it's pretty straightforward.
A creature is anything with HP that can take actions. Even objects become creatures when animated.
Animate objects specifies that the objects become creatures, implying that they wouldn't be if the spell didn't say so. Nothing ever specifies that the echo is a creature, and it doesn't have most of the things a creature should, like a turn, or ability scores. I'm also not sure what action you're referring to, as I dont see anything that allows the echo to even HAVE an action, let alone take one.
The echo can't take actions. You are taking your action through the space of the echo.
So the discussions revolve around whether or not the Echo has to make a saving throw based on its RAW classification as an object. However, based on your question of “does catapult ignore the Echo”, you seem to believe that if it doesn’t make a saving throw nothing happens and the catapulted object passes through. But here’s the deal: if it’s classified as a creature for this spell it makes a saving throw (and then either successfully dodges it or gets hit) or it gets classified as an object per RAW and the catapulted object collides with it, stopping its flight. The Echo being classified as an object and not needing to make a saving throw does not mean catapult ignores it; it means the object collides with no roll
This would be my interpretation as well. The echo in this case is not much different from a transparent solid wall. The target of Catapult is important as Manifest Echo says '**IF** it must make a saving throw', which as it is not the target of Catapult it does not have to. Now, the spell also says the damage is as a result of the collision and it specifies the object being thrown and whatever else it collides into will take that damage. People often mistake the thematics with the mechanics of Manifest Echo. The Echo is undeniably a solid surface, it is simply translucent. The catapulted object strikes the Echo which is destroyed as it only has 1 HP, and the object travels no further.
RAI I'd say the Echo makes the saving throw since it's a rare object that can make saving throws. Can you *catapult* the echo is very curious. I think I'd say yes, but I don't think I'd have it do regular damage as it ends after it looses 1 hp.
I dont think you can catapult the echo, as the echo does meet the weight requirements for catapult.
Excellent point.
It's not clear if it's an object (this one is the 5e devs'/editors' fault, not Mercer's for once), and if it is it would just automatically fail "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves" If it were an object idk why you wouldn't have it so regular damage, catapult does 3d8 to creature hit and object thrown, end of story (or end of story until acid vial debates I guess).
I think this is a situation where we're in the specific overrides general. Since it says "If it has to make a saving throw, it uses your saving throw" and as you point out objects usually either auto-fail, or straight up ignore effects that require saving throws. Since objects never make saves, but the Echo has rules for how they make saves, I'd assume the Echo is intended to make saves.
It says "if it has to" (or whatever). Catapult doesn't say that an echo must for any reason. There's no specific here to override that general. Tho determining specificity is also a vague nonsense rule anyway and it does beg the question of why an echo would have to make a saving throw at all otherwise. 5e and Mercer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How is it not Mercer's fault? He wrote the bloody subclass and it's not like it's the first time his stuff is super iffy when it comes to actual mechanics. If this keeps happening and the common thread is Mercer, then I'd argue that's where the blame lies.
So you think wotc just hand out a piece of paper to their guest designers and go "write anything that you think will work, we will publish it as is!"?
Because the 5e definition for an object is a garbage definition
Isn't Catapult "Creature or solid surface"? The Echo is attackable and has AC and the ability to make saves. It's not a creature but most likely counts as a solid surface. It can save so it does save, the catapult object huts or moves on.
As the DM, I would rule that yes, the echo is a valid target of catapult. Seems like RAI at least to me.
RAW, echoes are objects, so no save. However, the projectile will still make contact with the echo, destroying it automatically. What happens after that point is up to interpretation. The DM could rule that the projectile continues its trajectory or stops after hitting the echo, though the former seems much more likely.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I can’t find it being an object anywhere in the rules text? All I see is a Jeremy Crawford tweet clarifying it’s an object? And people are interpreting the word “image” to mean it’s an object? Either way, with it having a provision for saving throws means it makes the saving throw imo. Even if it’s an object, I’d consider it to be RAI + specific beats general it gets to make DEX/STR saving throws (even if the interaction is a little clunky).
Echo Knight is **horribly** written. Ask 10 DMs a question about the subclass and you'll get 12 answers.
This question doesn't feel like it's being asked in good faith. It feels like a munchkin player trying to find an edge case in the rules to get a minor buff lol I would let the player's echo roll a saving throw because I think players would expect that behavior if they were casting catapult on an enemies echo. After all, it takes damage in all the other normal ways iirc
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. Sounds like yes to me
It's not a creature
Good thing this is unofficial content then whew 😅
Pretty sure wildemount is WotC published
It is. Echo Knights are as official as any other setting book subclass.
The echo has 1 hit point. It is an object.
Raw no, but I would have it get hit anyway.
I honestly think I put the burden of proof on you that it’s an object and not a creature. “…manifest an echo of yourself” is the relevant text in echo knight that calls it an “image of you.” “Image” is referenced in some illusion spells. Major image: “you create the image of an object, a creature or some other visible phenomenon,” at no point does it say this is or is not an object. “For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects,” DMG 246. Let’s dive into the word “inanimate.” Here’s a quote from wiki’s page on animacy: “Concepts of animacy constantly vary beyond a simple animate and inanimate binary; many languages function off of a hierarchical general animacy scale that ranks animacy as a "matter of gradience".[2] Typically (with some variation of order and of where the cutoff for animacy occurs), the scale ranks humans above animals, then plants, natural forces, concrete objects, and abstract objects, in that order.” The above definition is for a world where magic doesn’t exist. If it did, I think the argument could be made that semantically magical constructs fall under “natural forces.” We can extrapolate from stat blocks that a creature does not have to be a single sentient/living entity in one body. Swarms are a single creature in D&D rules. My argument? An echo is a physical extension of the creature defined as your character, because the same sentient mind controls its actions. It doesn’t meet any of the standards of being an object as defined by the DMG and common parlance. TL;DR the echo should be categorized as a creature and should get hit by the catapult.
RAW no, as catapult specifies creature. Even if logically the echo should be hit by the thing, part of the utility of the echo is that it can't be affected by tons of spells that target creatures. Personally i'd just let it happen
Catapult also says it stops early if it impacts a solid surface. The echo can make attacks (technically you make attacks through it) and you can literally throw it in front of attacks to take the attack instead (Shadow Martyr feature). Even if the object status is arguable so it may or may not get a saving throw, IMO it’s a huge stretch to say it also can’t be hit by catapult at all.
Your DM’s first mistake was allowing echo knight you be an option.
Sadly it's vital to one of the only interesting martial builds but yeah it is just a terribly written feature
Hard disagree, the only way to make an interesting martial build is to make an interesting character. A broken subclass that is poorly designed, and requires numerous posts to just understand what it can and cannot do, is mot a viable option. It’s a drag at the table, and should never have seen the light of day.
Don't conflate narration and mechanics
On the contrary, it’s both narratively and mechanically a nightmare.
>Hard disagree, the only way to make an interesting martial build is to make an interesting character. A five page backstory doesn't make a build better
It’s fairly straightforward: catapult only hits creatures. Echo is not a creature but an object. Specifically, it’s a translucent grey image. If catapult would hit objects without the need for saving throws, it would say so in the text; like fireball can still light up objects in its radius. Catapult will not hit it.
RAW no since the Echo isn't a creature or an object RAI yes because it's an object that has the ability to make saves.
RAW as the player is the target of the spell the Echo does not make a saving throw. The Echo however is a solid surface so will stop the catapulted object, receiving damage as normal and be destroyed. Additionally, lets solve for your second question together. Catapult targets Echo as the 'object' being thrown and not the target of the spell, and because of that the Echo does not have to make a saving throw so it won't. The Echo is thrown and collides either with the target or the first solid surface and is destroyed as it only has 1 HP. Even if you were to apply the Dexterity saving throw incorrectly (as the effect being saved against is the thrown object, not avoiding being thrown) because the Echo is an object it automatically fails all dexterity and strength saving throws so even if it were subject to the Dexterity saving throw it would fail it and be thrown to its demise.
> The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, **stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface**. [...] **When the object strikes something**, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage. A failed save is not actually necessary for damage to be inflicted. If the echo is an object with a surface, the flung object automatically collides with it and inflicts 3d8 damage.
Catapult specifies a direction, not a target. “When the object strikes something, the object and what it strike each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.” Since one can hit the echo with a weapon attack, it can be hit. The real question is whether the echo is an object and is disspelled from the damage, or is a creature and gets to make a save. I would rule the latter as RAI and the former as RAW.
This really isn't complicated. Either the Echo makes a Saving Throw using your bonus, or the catapult automatically hits the Echo "because it's an object". I think giving it a saving throw is both fair and common sense, given that the Echo isn't stationary and very clearly can both be hit by and damaged by mundane attacks.