4
\$\begingroup\$

Candidate for closure: Is the Echo of a Echo Knight actually a creature?

Dupe Target: Does an Echo Knight fighter's echo provoke an opportunity attack when it moves?

Is this question asking if the Echo Knight's Echo is a creature or not a duplicate of the question asking about the Echo triggering opportunity attacks?

\$\endgroup\$
0
6
\$\begingroup\$

Closing it as a duplicate presumes a specific correct answer.

The argument is that it's redundant to ask question 2 (is the echo a creature?) because the answer to question 1 (does it provoke opportunity attacks?) already entails that. This envisions the answer to question 1 as a syllogism:

A. Only a creature can provoke opportunity attacks.
B. An echo is not a creature.
Therefore, C. An echo does not provoke opportunity attacks.

If that answer properly establishes its premises, it will contain an answer to question 2.

But this is not the only possible answer. In fact there are currently three answers to question 1:

  • the accepted answer ("no"), which relies on that syllogism;
  • an overwhelming upvoted answer ("yes") that directly contradicts the accepted answer;
  • a moderately upvoted answer ("I don't know") saying the language is ambiguous.

Now, assuming the validity of premise A, the "yes" answer must also imply an answer to question 2--that the echo is a creature. However, the argument actually made by the "yes" answer is that premise A is unreliable (and it goes on to answer question 1 by considering other factors).

Closing question 2 as a duplicate therefore amounts to affirming premise A and rejecting the "yes" answer to question 1, and probably the "I don't know" answer as well.

This is not what closing questions is for. It's a janitorial tool for keeping the space clean and maintaining the quality of questions, not a device for declaring victory in arguments.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the core issue is that OAs are only done by creatures. So asking if X generates OAs, then it's asking at it's core if it is a creature. But that also seems separate enough. It's close! \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Dec 16 '20 at 16:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch My position is that "OAs are only done by creatures" is a fairly fraught statement. It's not something we can just accept as a fact for purposes of site policy. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mark Wells
    Dec 16 '20 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is it, though? I mean, we are the experts here and I think that's fairly clear in that being a creature is the requirement. But I'm personally unconvinced it's a dupe (or that it's not a dupe.) \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Dec 16 '20 at 17:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I think the issue here is that we don't know if there are or would be other requirements to performing an Opportunity Attack other than being a creature and having a reaction; iirc, the Echo doesn't have its own actions or reactions and thus can't perform an Opportunity Attack anyway, so that wouldn't mean it is inherently not a creature. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 23 '20 at 4:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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