Usually, when two creatures can't see each other, and one makes an attack roll against the other, we roll a straight single D20-- advantage from unseen attacker cancels out with disadvantage from unseen target.

An echo knight's echo, however, is not a creature, but an object (as typically interpreted, with guidance from Crawford: "If this translucent, gray image were meant to be a creature, the rule would say so.") Perhaps redundantly with that, it is also immune to all conditions (I'm not sure that anything that is not a creature can even have conditions), so it can't be Blind, as heavy obscurement or attacker invisibility would impose.

So can attacks against an echo even gain advantage from unseen attacker?

If they can, can attacks against other objects gain advantage from unseen attacker?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Related: "Is the Echo of a Echo Knight actually a creature?" \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 16:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Linking and quoting Crawford's statements (and also noting that his tweets are not considered 'official' rulings) would improve this question. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @That_Knight_Guy Thanks, linked; I consider using "guidance" sufficiently indicates unofficialness; I probably have some philosophical differences regarding use of "official" that aren't worth getting into here. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:13

1 Answer 1


You only gain advantage for being unseen if you are attacking a creature.

The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets state:

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

If, as the question assumed, the Echo is not a creature, you do not get advantage on attacks against it just by being unseen. The same goes for other objects - you only get advantage for being unseen if your target is a creature.

Now, whether or not the Echo is actually a creature or should be treated as one is the subject of much debate, and is explored in these Q&A:

The Echo Knight subclass is definitely not a polished class. When I played an Echo Knight, my DM and I did a lot of extra work deciding how to rule different situations. For this partiuclar situation, we decided to go with "enemies cannot gain advantage against the echo by being unseen". And that's how you should solve this - talk with your DM.

There's a price to pay when picking he Echo Knight subclass: you've got to work with your DM to patch a lot of weirdness with the rest of the rules.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I would find interesting an answer on whether it can lead to "unseen attacker" advantage even if it is a creature, considering its immunity to any conditions including "Blind". If you felt like it.... \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user2206636 Im sorry, I don't see what immunity to blindness has to do with it. Oftentimes creature are immune to sense-limiting conditions not because that sense is always on, but because they don't even have that sense. I think that's the case here - the Echo is immune to blindness because it doesn't have sight in the first place. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ In which case, they would always suffer unseen attacker advantage? Or, we could say that heavy obscurement/invisibility causes blindness which causes advantage via conditions text, rather than heavy obscurement causing advantage directly. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @user2206636 When I played an Echo Knight we ruled that enemies could not gain advantage against the echo from being unseen. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 3, 2021 at 17:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user2206636 Heavy obscurement gives you advantage on attacks because the target can't see you, not "via conditions text". The fact that the creature can't be blinded doesn't enable them to see in pitch darkness, or through obstructions. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mark Wells
    Aug 4, 2021 at 3:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .