We have a sorcerer and a wizard (me) in the party. I have an owl familiar.
If our sorcerer cast invisibility on my owl and I cast Dragon`s breath on it... Would the now invisible familiar break the invisibility spell if it uses it`s action to "use an action to exhale energy of the chosen type (dragons breath)"?
The invisibility spell specifically states that the spell ends when the effected creature makes an attack or casts a spell, but the familiar does not do either of those. It can not even use an attack action and it can not use any spells. Dragons breath being used by familiars is a known specific rule that overrides the basic rule. So can we have an invisible flying flamethrower? :)
No, it would not. Dragon's Breath forces a saving throw instead of an attack roll and you cast the spell previously, so it would not. This is a common strategy for chainlocks with imp familiars and someone to cast it.
Why would your GM rule against Dragon's Breath when with nothing but the PHB an invisible owl can inflict save-or-something-happens effects by deploying ball bearings or caltrops? And that's pure RAW, without getting into weird weeds like dropping alchemist's fire and oil.
I'm DMing a group with a warlock who has a pseudodragon familiar, and a sorcerer. The sorcerer took this spell immediately when he got to 3rd level, and has been using his sorcery points to gain more spell slots for this. We had just realized that familiar's can't attack (we're all seminew, and it skipped my mind, I'm assuming the player's too), and this isn't an attack, but a save. The warlock now has effectively a fire-breathing dragon sidekick at third level.
I would definitely rule that if the creature were invisible, it would remain so. It isn't attacking, because a familiar simply can't without invocations and a bonus action from the summoner, so why should it be considered an attack for the purposes of invisibility?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf."
You should be able to do this, but keep in mind that being invisible doesn't mean you can't be attacked. If that thing is breathing fire, enemies are going to know where it is unless it takes the hide action. They will be able to attack it at disadvantage, but familiars have low ac and hp. So it's not quite the foolproof plan you might think.
I agree and this is RAW. But we are exploring a caveat within the Invisibility spell and Familiar action. Which I believe go against RAI.
RAI is bullshit, if something is intended it would be RAW. (not attacking the quote)
Sometimes RAW and RAI are not the same because language is tricky. Certain things can be interpreted in multiple ways. Normally in a conversation we can easily say something one or two different ways to indicate the intention clearly. In a book, this is very difficult. You can certain choose other words and be very jargon-heavy, like 3.5 ed was but it create huge bloat and feels restrictive. Or, you can keep it more idiomatic like 5th ed but the oversimplification leads to language gaps where some people can interpret things differently. There's been issues before where Mike Mearls wrote rules and later stated what he intended, only for Jeremy Crawford (the 'rules guy') to advise the RAW was different due to the actual words used.
This is why we have Sage Advice - to clarify the RAI behind the RAW.
Welcome to language.
Also, I'm going to add the RAI and RAW here differ because the RAI was Invisibility would break BUT then Xanathar's came along with Dragon's Breath which had a feature they didn't think about when making Invisibility. This then leads to the "invisible flamethrower" scenario we now have. It was not the original design intent - hence no RAI - but is nevertheless the RAW.
However, all things considered it's not that OP so no Errata needed.
A simple readied ranged attack and it ends pretty easily.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No and as a matter of fact you don't even have to touch the Owl. The Owl can touch himself to deliver the spell.
The only caveat to this is most enemies are going to try to kill your familiar if it does this and while invisibility will help it survive, it is usually not going to be enough if the enemy targets him.
Why would your GM rule against Dragon's Breath when with nothing but the PHB an invisible owl can inflict save-or-something-happens effects by deploying ball bearings or caltrops? And that's pure RAW, without getting into weird weeds like dropping alchemist's fire and oil.
I would not let an owl deploy caltrops because it does not have hands. An Imp, monkey or something like that sure. Dragon's breath though, yes absolutely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi guys,
We have a sorcerer and a wizard (me) in the party. I have an owl familiar.
If our sorcerer cast invisibility on my owl and I cast Dragon`s breath on it... Would the now invisible familiar break the invisibility spell if it uses it`s action to "use an action to exhale energy of the chosen type (dragons breath)"?
The invisibility spell specifically states that the spell ends when the effected creature makes an attack or casts a spell, but the familiar does not do either of those. It can not even use an attack action and it can not use any spells. Dragons breath being used by familiars is a known specific rule that overrides the basic rule. So can we have an invisible flying flamethrower? :)
No, it would not. Dragon's Breath forces a saving throw instead of an attack roll and you cast the spell previously, so it would not. This is a common strategy for chainlocks with imp familiars and someone to cast it.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
However, it’s super debatable and your DM might act upon it. RAW vs. RAI.
I don't think it would. Dragon's Breath requires a saving throw, not an attack roll.
Erean Cabenrith a Variant Human Cleric (Light Domain)
Eliem Lightblossom a High Elf Blood Hunter
Check out my Extended Signature Here
I agree and this is RAW. But we are exploring a caveat within the Invisibility spell and Familiar action. Which I believe go against RAI.
Why would your GM rule against Dragon's Breath when with nothing but the PHB an invisible owl can inflict save-or-something-happens effects by deploying ball bearings or caltrops? And that's pure RAW, without getting into weird weeds like dropping alchemist's fire and oil.
I'm DMing a group with a warlock who has a pseudodragon familiar, and a sorcerer. The sorcerer took this spell immediately when he got to 3rd level, and has been using his sorcery points to gain more spell slots for this. We had just realized that familiar's can't attack (we're all seminew, and it skipped my mind, I'm assuming the player's too), and this isn't an attack, but a save. The warlock now has effectively a fire-breathing dragon sidekick at third level.
I would definitely rule that if the creature were invisible, it would remain so. It isn't attacking, because a familiar simply can't without invocations and a bonus action from the summoner, so why should it be considered an attack for the purposes of invisibility?
"I never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf."
"What about side by side with a side?"
"Aye, I eye eye eye."
You should be able to do this, but keep in mind that being invisible doesn't mean you can't be attacked. If that thing is breathing fire, enemies are going to know where it is unless it takes the hide action. They will be able to attack it at disadvantage, but familiars have low ac and hp. So it's not quite the foolproof plan you might think.
Thanks lads for everyones input. You confirmed everything that I thought, my DM has some thinking to do :)
RAI is bullshit, if something is intended it would be RAW. (not attacking the quote)
Sometimes RAW and RAI are not the same because language is tricky. Certain things can be interpreted in multiple ways. Normally in a conversation we can easily say something one or two different ways to indicate the intention clearly. In a book, this is very difficult. You can certain choose other words and be very jargon-heavy, like 3.5 ed was but it create huge bloat and feels restrictive. Or, you can keep it more idiomatic like 5th ed but the oversimplification leads to language gaps where some people can interpret things differently. There's been issues before where Mike Mearls wrote rules and later stated what he intended, only for Jeremy Crawford (the 'rules guy') to advise the RAW was different due to the actual words used.
This is why we have Sage Advice - to clarify the RAI behind the RAW.
Welcome to language.
Also, I'm going to add the RAI and RAW here differ because the RAI was Invisibility would break BUT then Xanathar's came along with Dragon's Breath which had a feature they didn't think about when making Invisibility. This then leads to the "invisible flamethrower" scenario we now have. It was not the original design intent - hence no RAI - but is nevertheless the RAW.
However, all things considered it's not that OP so no Errata needed.
A simple readied ranged attack and it ends pretty easily.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No and as a matter of fact you don't even have to touch the Owl. The Owl can touch himself to deliver the spell.
The only caveat to this is most enemies are going to try to kill your familiar if it does this and while invisibility will help it survive, it is usually not going to be enough if the enemy targets him.
I would not let an owl deploy caltrops because it does not have hands. An Imp, monkey or something like that sure. Dragon's breath though, yes absolutely.