Assuming they can hit the familiar. Many antagonists are limited to melee range, after all, and an owl can dive bomb from the sky. Or hide out on the wizard's shoulder, using her as cover. The options are many.
It's actually not that many, unless the DM has arbitrarily decided that monsters without ranged attacks in their stat blocks are entirely incapable of throwing rocks.
There are a few, though, that reasonably can't fling a rock at a tiny critter pestering them.
My point, however, was only to advise appropriate caution; to help make it so as few players as possible are caught completely off guard when their familiar gets popped for managing to actually be worth something's attention. Not that it's not still a great use of a spell to have a familiar deliver it.
It's actually not that many, unless the DM has arbitrarily decided that monsters without ranged attacks in their stat blocks are entirely incapable of throwing rocks.
I'm actually thinking of things like beasts. Kinda hard to have a tiger or dinosaur throw things. If its a humanoid, yeah, that won't work. Or the tarrasque. I kinda figure that zombies would be too dumb to pull it off as well.
I'm kinda assuming, though that we'd be altering our tactics to the enemies.
Familiars and/or Invisibility and Dragon's Breath.
I think my problem is I'm an X-wargamer. I'm so used to people using the phrase "but the rules don't say I can't do it" and trying to find loop holes. D&D falls between a RPG and Wargame
The section under familiars says the familiar can't attack. It doesn't say "use the Attack Action" it says "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." The Invisibility spell doesn't say it ends if the target uses the "Attack Action" is says if the target attacks or casts a spell.
You can argue that Dragon's Breath is an "other actions as normal", but this his sounds like the arguments my brother and I used to have when we were six. "I didn't punch you, I was punching the air and you walked into my fist."
Familiars and/or Invisibility and Dragon's Breath.
I think my problem is I'm an X-wargamer. I'm so used to people using the phrase "but the rules don't say I can't do it" and trying to find loop holes. D&D falls between a RPG and Wargame
The section under familiars says the familiar can't attack. It doesn't say "use the Attack Action" it says "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." The Invisibility spell doesn't say it ends if the target uses the "Attack Action" is says if the target attacks or casts a spell.
You can argue that Dragon's Breath is an "other actions as normal", but this his sounds like the arguments my brother and I used to have when we were six. "I didn't punch you, I was punching the air and you walked into my fist."
See, that's where I have an issue. To me, trying to say that a familiar with Dragon's Breath can't breath fire because that's "attack-like" and familiars can't "attack" seems to be just as rules-lawyer-y to me. That's the "punching air, but you walked into my fist" argument to me. An owl familiar is not going to suddenly lose its ability to swoop down and pick up a field mouse, and then kill it and eat it. That's still attack-like. Especially if its a fiendish owl with a chance of being sadistic.
This is only my opinion, but I don't think a familiar is allowed to make an Attack because, simply put, the idea of a tiny cat dealing damage to a scaled dragon, or even an ogre, is slightly silly. A familiar is not a credible threat in combat, so no flanking, no counting on it to help the rogue sneak attack, etc. But if you magically enhance them with spew lightning, that's another matter entirely.
Now, unless there's some strange mystic compulsion mixed in here that prevent it from being able to harm the smallest fly (which I seriously doubt given that you can deliver touch attacks with it), I find being unable to use Dragon's Breath as a familiar very unlikely
That's the thing the familiar can't attack. You interpret that rule as it's not a credible threat with it's +4 to hit and 1 damage, so it shouldn't provide flanking, sneak attack, etc... Although it CAN provide the "Help Action" to give someone else Advantage. I'd argue if it can provide that, then it provides sneak attack (especially if you leave it inside 5' to provide that Sneak Attak, it'll be toast).
So your interpretation is that the Devs decided to make a rule that familars can't attack to keep the Wizard from slowing down play for a single 1 damage attack a turn? Keep in mind Pact of Chains Warlocks with their upgraded familiars, have to sacrifice one of their own attacks to let their familar attack and those attacks are a joke.
If you want your fiendish owl to eat a field mouse I don't think any GM will deny you that, but that's color/flavor/RP and not a combat action. The only way I could think it's a combat action is if someone used Animal Messanger, and you wanted the familiar to intercept. But here with the spell you are clearly giving your familiar an attack and using it to attack and deal damage in combat. My point is the rule states "familiars can't attack", the rule isn't "familars can't use the attack action". This spell IS an attack, are you trying to argue an attack only count as an official "attack" if you hit AC? If you cast Dragon's Breath on a PC, they lose their normal attack action to gain this spell ability. The familiar doesn't have an attack action to sacrifice so it's now a force multiplier for the spell.
This is the same logic that in the Warlock forums they are aruging an invisible chains familiar will stay invisible because it's not an "attack" and so it doesn't break invisibility. It's obviously an attack. Otherwise you have an invisible, flying, monster, spewing energy attacks in an AoE for a full minute with very little recourse.
I'm aware of all that. I'm just pointing out that there are people who disagree with your logic, and have logic of their own. And, you know what? That's fine. Everyone has their own vision of the game... and that's exactly what the writers wanted. Natural language and each table having their own vision of how those rules work. You are making a call from a gamist perspective, while other perspectives from a narrative or a simulationist view point don't agree with you.
If you don't like the logic behind it, that's fine, you disagree with it. But claiming its the same logic as invisible chain familiar just because you don't agree with it is simply untrue. They're vastly different, and I get the feeling that you're looking down a bit on how other people view the game, and want to play it. Everyone has their own views. I find this idea that you're separating non-combat "colorful" actions from combat actions to be very strange and not something my table would accept in the slightest.
But that's fine. We can agree to disagree, and respect each other's way of playing.
This is the same logic that in the Warlock forums they are aruging an invisible chains familiar will stay invisible because it's not an "attack" and so it doesn't break invisibility. It's obviously an attack. Otherwise you have an invisible, flying, monster, spewing energy attacks in an AoE for a full minute with very little recourse.
A warlock can only gain Dragon's Breath through multiclassing. Plus the DM would have recourse, it's called breaking the warlocks concentration. Regardless, Dragon's Breath doesn't count as an attack by RAW. And really, I didn't think this would create such an issue considering what is and isn't an attack (by RAW) is so straightforward. So yes, a familiar can use Dragon's Breath. Which is great since familiars can now put some distance between them and their targets, whereas before they were restricted to touch-based attacks only.
Granted some DM's may be adverse to such a combo, leaving many unable to do it (due to house ruling) or if allowed then have their DM"s potentially focus them to break concentration as soon as possible. Which sadly could make this in the long run not as fun as it sounds right now. Though there are ways around concentration for those invested in having their companions have as much fun during combat as they do.
From what I've read, an attack is defined as an action in which an attack roll is made (PHB 194). This makes me think that a familiar can use the ability granted by Dragon's Breath. This interpretation would also mean that someone who is under the Invisibility spell could use the Dragon's Breath ability without becoming visible (though as a DM it would be easy to justify a monster "seeing" where the breath came from).
I'm not sure if this is what the designers intended when they made Dragon's Breath, but as it's written, appears to be usable. If it ended up being abused in a campaign, then it may warrant the DM to step in a house rule that it away or something. Just my 2cp...
I like the familiars in 5e. I will play a War Wizard with a familiar. He will have different kinds of familiars depending on the enviroment. It only take an hour to change so its easy to adapt. Cat and owl in cities. Rat and bat in caves. Weasel and owl in forrest and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking.
I like the familiars in 5e. I will play a War Wizard with a familiar. He will have different kinds of familiars depending on the enviroment. It only take an hour to change so its easy to adapt. Cat and owl in cities. Rat and bat in caves. Weasel and owl in forrest and so on.
Certainly a good roleplay idea, I mean someone would be a little surprised to see a bat flying around in town (not that it would be unheard of but someone might notice) and using a creature that is naturally in that environment means enemies could easily overlook it even if they saw the creature. Watch out them Kobolds or orcs might try to eat your rat if they are hungry enough...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Apparently Jeremy Crawford always intended "an attack" to be a d20 roll. Effects that cause a save are not "an attack". This means a familiar can use Dragon's Breath AND that the use of the spell by the familiar won't void Invisibility. I still think this intention is insane, but I concede it's RAW.
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
Yeah, as soon as you summon a new one the old one ceases to be ...familiar... to you. Or rather the 'old' familiar transforms into the new one.Find Familiar
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Yeah if you didn't summon them with Find Familiar then they would just be companions. Still lots of fun but you "shouldn't" be able to do the suite of familiar abilities, but you do you. Having fun with your party is more important.
Besides I ******* love Pokemon : )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Assuming they can hit the familiar. Many antagonists are limited to melee range, after all, and an owl can dive bomb from the sky. Or hide out on the wizard's shoulder, using her as cover. The options are many.
It's actually not that many, unless the DM has arbitrarily decided that monsters without ranged attacks in their stat blocks are entirely incapable of throwing rocks.
There are a few, though, that reasonably can't fling a rock at a tiny critter pestering them.
My point, however, was only to advise appropriate caution; to help make it so as few players as possible are caught completely off guard when their familiar gets popped for managing to actually be worth something's attention. Not that it's not still a great use of a spell to have a familiar deliver it.
Familiars and/or Invisibility and Dragon's Breath.
I think my problem is I'm an X-wargamer. I'm so used to people using the phrase "but the rules don't say I can't do it" and trying to find loop holes. D&D falls between a RPG and Wargame
The section under familiars says the familiar can't attack. It doesn't say "use the Attack Action" it says "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal."
The Invisibility spell doesn't say it ends if the target uses the "Attack Action" is says if the target attacks or casts a spell.
You can argue that Dragon's Breath is an "other actions as normal", but this his sounds like the arguments my brother and I used to have when we were six. "I didn't punch you, I was punching the air and you walked into my fist."
Mephista,
That's the thing the familiar can't attack. You interpret that rule as it's not a credible threat with it's +4 to hit and 1 damage, so it shouldn't provide flanking, sneak attack, etc... Although it CAN provide the "Help Action" to give someone else Advantage. I'd argue if it can provide that, then it provides sneak attack (especially if you leave it inside 5' to provide that Sneak Attak, it'll be toast).
So your interpretation is that the Devs decided to make a rule that familars can't attack to keep the Wizard from slowing down play for a single 1 damage attack a turn?
Keep in mind Pact of Chains Warlocks with their upgraded familiars, have to sacrifice one of their own attacks to let their familar attack and those attacks are a joke.
If you want your fiendish owl to eat a field mouse I don't think any GM will deny you that, but that's color/flavor/RP and not a combat action. The only way I could think it's a combat action is if someone used Animal Messanger, and you wanted the familiar to intercept. But here with the spell you are clearly giving your familiar an attack and using it to attack and deal damage in combat. My point is the rule states "familiars can't attack", the rule isn't "familars can't use the attack action". This spell IS an attack, are you trying to argue an attack only count as an official "attack" if you hit AC?
If you cast Dragon's Breath on a PC, they lose their normal attack action to gain this spell ability. The familiar doesn't have an attack action to sacrifice so it's now a force multiplier for the spell.
This is the same logic that in the Warlock forums they are aruging an invisible chains familiar will stay invisible because it's not an "attack" and so it doesn't break invisibility. It's obviously an attack. Otherwise you have an invisible, flying, monster, spewing energy attacks in an AoE for a full minute with very little recourse.
I'm aware of all that. I'm just pointing out that there are people who disagree with your logic, and have logic of their own. And, you know what? That's fine. Everyone has their own vision of the game... and that's exactly what the writers wanted. Natural language and each table having their own vision of how those rules work. You are making a call from a gamist perspective, while other perspectives from a narrative or a simulationist view point don't agree with you.
If you don't like the logic behind it, that's fine, you disagree with it. But claiming its the same logic as invisible chain familiar just because you don't agree with it is simply untrue. They're vastly different, and I get the feeling that you're looking down a bit on how other people view the game, and want to play it. Everyone has their own views. I find this idea that you're separating non-combat "colorful" actions from combat actions to be very strange and not something my table would accept in the slightest.
But that's fine. We can agree to disagree, and respect each other's way of playing.
From what I've read, an attack is defined as an action in which an attack roll is made (PHB 194). This makes me think that a familiar can use the ability granted by Dragon's Breath. This interpretation would also mean that someone who is under the Invisibility spell could use the Dragon's Breath ability without becoming visible (though as a DM it would be easy to justify a monster "seeing" where the breath came from).
I'm not sure if this is what the designers intended when they made Dragon's Breath, but as it's written, appears to be usable. If it ended up being abused in a campaign, then it may warrant the DM to step in a house rule that it away or something. Just my 2cp...
I wonder if I could train pigs to deliver dragon breath attacks for me?
Edit : less fun, but more practical - what about a warhorse?
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I also chose Tressym, too bad it requires DM approval. It's good to have a DM that allows it!
I found this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/15/is-magic-missile-an-attack/
Apparently Jeremy Crawford always intended "an attack" to be a d20 roll. Effects that cause a save are not "an attack".
This means a familiar can use Dragon's Breath AND that the use of the spell by the familiar won't void Invisibility.
I still think this intention is insane, but I concede it's RAW.
My Wizard has ended up with 3 Familiars so far. Is that bad.
Three? How? Which familiars?
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
Yeah, as soon as you summon a new one the old one ceases to be ...familiar... to you. Or rather the 'old' familiar transforms into the new one.Find Familiar
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
We have them as a kin to the person like multiple companions. I have a pseudo dragon, pixie, raven.
i guess ours our more story based but still useable.
My DM character has 5 dragon wyrmlings as his.
Yeah if you didn't summon them with Find Familiar then they would just be companions. Still lots of fun but you "shouldn't" be able to do the suite of familiar abilities, but you do you. Having fun with your party is more important.
Besides I ******* love Pokemon : )
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."