So here's a question. With Pact of the Chain Warlock you can forgo your Attack Action for you're Imp (or familiar) to use its Reaction to attack. (in this scenario we assume your Imp or familiar's turn is right after yours).
So in theory, if I cast invisibility on myself, wait until next turn, then use my Attack Action to trigger my Imp to attack using its Reaction (Imp coming out of Invisibility) but then immediately after have my Imp cast Invisibility on itself as its Action (since its only used its Reaction so far), and then keep doing this every round thus keeping myself and Imp invisible basically at all times while my Imp does the attacking.
Is there a rule somewhere i'm missing or is this a viable option?
so pact of the chain states "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction"
invisibility says "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Based on these two peices of information, we can surmise that making the familiar attack depends on our attack action, which means we've "attacked" by invisibility's rules. so, it wouldn't work. However, the invocation Investment of the Chain Master states you use your bonus action to "command" the familiar to attack, rather than actually take the attack action yourself. We didn't "attack," so it may work if you look at it from a hard RAW point of view, but your DM may have differing opinions.
Keep in mind, however, that your DM may not have you and your familiar share the same initiative roll. I've played with plenty who do, and plenty who don't. It may have a different roll, so if it attacks and comes out of invisibility, it may actually be in danger of being killed quite easily when an enemy's turn comes up.
so pact of the chain states "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction"
invisibility says "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Based on these two peices of information, we can surmise that making the familiar attack depends on our attack action, which means we've "attacked" by invisibility's rules. so, it wouldn't work. However, the invocation Investment of the Chain Master states you use your bonus action to "command" the familiar to attack, rather than actually take the attack action yourself. We didn't "attack," so it may work if you look at it from a hard RAW point of view, but your DM may have differing opinions.
Keep in mind, however, that your DM may not have you and your familiar share the same initiative roll. I've played with plenty who do, and plenty who don't. It may have a different roll, so if it attacks and comes out of invisibility, it may actually be in danger of being killed quite easily when an enemy's turn comes up.
Ok maybe its a DM call, cause I've heard others say "because you're using the attack "Action" but not actually "attacking" it does not break invisibility". Maybe it depends who is interpreting it and should best be discussed prior with DM before trying to use.
Ya I was assuming the scenario where the DM just says your familiar always goes right after you but you're right it may not.
The reason the Bonus Action option wouldn't work is because it states when you use your Bonus Action the Imp now uses its Action to attack, vs its Reaction. So in that scenario it wouldn't be able to turn invisible again on the same turn.
If you use your bonus action with investment invocation, the imp is not using it's action, but even if it did, it wouldn't matter because it's happening on the warlock's turn. So, if the warlock did his thing, the imp would still have their action to turn invisible on their turn.
invisibility says "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Based on these two peices of information, we can surmise that making the familiar attack depends on our attack action, which means we've "attacked" by invisibility's rules.
I'd say it's a bit less clear than that; usually "attacked" means that a creature made some form of attack roll (or special attack such as a Grapple or Shove). Where it gets unclear is that while the Attack action lets you make one attack, if you give it to your familiar then you haven't performed any kind of attack yourself, i.e- the action enabled something else to attack, but not you. Usually when a rule wants to refer to the Attack action it says it in full, e.g- "After you take the Attack action on your turn you may…" etc.
How I would think of it is, if I were a crime boss with goons, and I gave one a nod to hit a target, I wouldn't describe myself as having attacked that target, but it would be my fault that it happened.
But as you rightly point out the familiar is supposed to have its own initiative, so there's no guarantee it can go invisible before an enemy can retaliate; it's tough to say what this might look like in future though, as many of the newer summon spells have summons take their turn immediately after your own (which is a lot simpler), so DM's may replicate that for familiars, but they should be looking out for abuses of that.
It's not an especially broken tactic though; an imp isn't much of a damage powerhouse, and while enemies will have disadvantage to hit it, they can still attempt to, so even if it's allowed to immediately go invisible it's still fairly easy to kill, as a moderate attack bonus (+7?) brings the chances of hitting it to 50% and one decent hit can take the imp out of action, at which point it's an hour before you can bring it back, and that's if they need to hit (invisibility offers no protection against area effects, and if the imp is attacking then creatures know where it is).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey
So here's a question. With Pact of the Chain Warlock you can forgo your Attack Action for you're Imp (or familiar) to use its Reaction to attack. (in this scenario we assume your Imp or familiar's turn is right after yours).
So in theory, if I cast invisibility on myself, wait until next turn, then use my Attack Action to trigger my Imp to attack using its Reaction (Imp coming out of Invisibility) but then immediately after have my Imp cast Invisibility on itself as its Action (since its only used its Reaction so far), and then keep doing this every round thus keeping myself and Imp invisible basically at all times while my Imp does the attacking.
Is there a rule somewhere i'm missing or is this a viable option?
Thanks
so pact of the chain states "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction"
invisibility says "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Based on these two peices of information, we can surmise that making the familiar attack depends on our attack action, which means we've "attacked" by invisibility's rules. so, it wouldn't work. However, the invocation Investment of the Chain Master states you use your bonus action to "command" the familiar to attack, rather than actually take the attack action yourself. We didn't "attack," so it may work if you look at it from a hard RAW point of view, but your DM may have differing opinions.
Keep in mind, however, that your DM may not have you and your familiar share the same initiative roll. I've played with plenty who do, and plenty who don't. It may have a different roll, so if it attacks and comes out of invisibility, it may actually be in danger of being killed quite easily when an enemy's turn comes up.
Ok maybe its a DM call, cause I've heard others say "because you're using the attack "Action" but not actually "attacking" it does not break invisibility". Maybe it depends who is interpreting it and should best be discussed prior with DM before trying to use.
Ya I was assuming the scenario where the DM just says your familiar always goes right after you but you're right it may not.
The reason the Bonus Action option wouldn't work is because it states when you use your Bonus Action the Imp now uses its Action to attack, vs its Reaction. So in that scenario it wouldn't be able to turn invisible again on the same turn.
If you use your bonus action with investment invocation, the imp is not using it's action, but even if it did, it wouldn't matter because it's happening on the warlock's turn. So, if the warlock did his thing, the imp would still have their action to turn invisible on their turn.
I'd say it's a bit less clear than that; usually "attacked" means that a creature made some form of attack roll (or special attack such as a Grapple or Shove). Where it gets unclear is that while the Attack action lets you make one attack, if you give it to your familiar then you haven't performed any kind of attack yourself, i.e- the action enabled something else to attack, but not you. Usually when a rule wants to refer to the Attack action it says it in full, e.g- "After you take the Attack action on your turn you may…" etc.
How I would think of it is, if I were a crime boss with goons, and I gave one a nod to hit a target, I wouldn't describe myself as having attacked that target, but it would be my fault that it happened.
But as you rightly point out the familiar is supposed to have its own initiative, so there's no guarantee it can go invisible before an enemy can retaliate; it's tough to say what this might look like in future though, as many of the newer summon spells have summons take their turn immediately after your own (which is a lot simpler), so DM's may replicate that for familiars, but they should be looking out for abuses of that.
It's not an especially broken tactic though; an imp isn't much of a damage powerhouse, and while enemies will have disadvantage to hit it, they can still attempt to, so even if it's allowed to immediately go invisible it's still fairly easy to kill, as a moderate attack bonus (+7?) brings the chances of hitting it to 50% and one decent hit can take the imp out of action, at which point it's an hour before you can bring it back, and that's if they need to hit (invisibility offers no protection against area effects, and if the imp is attacking then creatures know where it is).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.