Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
That's just stretching the rules to find loopholes to be honest. I don't think many DM's would allow that and even if they do, I'd expect them to shoot the familiar off your shoulder right away; and I wouldn't blame them.
DMs are free to do that if they want, I suppose, but the game is designed around the assumption rogues are sneak attacking every round. All this does is enable that. And I don't see how it's a "loophole". It's an ally within 5ft of your target -- it's pretty clear.
Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
That's just stretching the rules to find loopholes to be honest. I don't think many DM's would allow that and even if they do, I'd expect them to shoot the familiar off your shoulder right away; and I wouldn't blame them.
DMs are free to do that if they want, I suppose, but the game is designed around the assumption rogues are sneak attacking every round. All this does is enable that. And I don't see how it's a "loophole". It's an ally within 5ft of your target -- it's pretty clear.
The rule doesn't call for an ally within 5ft of your target. It calls for an enemy of the target within 5ft of the target. Is an animal which has taken no aggressive actions towards your target other than sitting on your shoulder considered an enemy to your target? Debatable.
If it takes the help action, then it can be considered an enemy but can be shot down immediately, especially when considering the shenanigans of "my familiar uses help action and then hides in my pocket".
I called it a loophole because whilst RAW, it's a way to avoid AOO's. Personally, I would allow the use of the familiar as an enemy of your enemy and able to use the help action if it is 100% of the time in harm's way. And that means AOO unless it's an owl.
Fair point. Familiars cannot attack, except for those acquired via Pact of the Chain. They can be used to deliver spells with a range of Touch, but only with their reaction on the attached spellcaster's turn. So there presence alone might not be enough to justify calling them an enemy. The ones summoned by the base version of the spell certainly cannot threaten targets on their own.
The rule doesn't call for an ally within 5ft of your target. It calls for an enemy of the target within 5ft of the target. Is an animal which has taken no aggressive actions towards your target other than sitting on your shoulder considered an enemy to your target? Debatable.
If it takes the help action, then it can be considered an enemy but can be shot down immediately, especially when considering the shenanigans of "my familiar uses help action and then hides in my pocket".
It's difficult for me to reconcile the logic needed to define an enemy as anything other than "a creature with a hostile relationship to you". Requiring a hostile action (or the ability to threaten as @Jounichi1983 suggests) makes everything more complicated.
For example, a player that moves next to what would be an enemy and Dodges would not be able to count for enabling sneak attack, or if they had to Dash to get next to them they wouldn't count. Would they be considered a valid enemy when the opposing creature attacks them or would they have to wait a full round to be considered an enemy? And if it were based on the ability to threaten, then a creature engaged in the fight who becomes paralyzed or stunned ceases to be an enemy to the opposition despite likely still being a target of them.
Since "enemy" goes undefined mechanically in the books as far as I can tell, I can't imagine it means anything other than its common language definition -- "someone or something that is hostile", which the familiar clearly is.
I called it a loophole because whilst RAW, it's a way to avoid AOO's. Personally, I would allow the use of the familiar as an enemy of your enemy and able to use the help action if it is 100% of the time in harm's way. And that means AOO unless it's an owl.
Again, I haven't really been talking about the Help action here. That said, if the rogue the familiar is mounted on moves away, you can take an AOO on the rogue. That's how the mounted rules work. If the rogue does something that allows them to avoid the AOO, then they have used an ability the game intends them to have to do so. I don't see any reason this is more cheesy than simply using an owl -- which you seem to be fine with?
Even if the enemy cannot take an aggressive Action, there might still be a Bonus Action or Reaction (like an Opportunity Attack) that could threaten them. The real issue with the Familiar is it cannot act on its own to threaten. It can only do so as an extension of their spellcaster.
Though I do think a fun house rule would be letting War Caster work in conjunction with the familiar, so if an enemy retreats them them the spellcaster can cast a single target 1 action spell as their Reaction.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
As far as AOOs, the familiar is essentially using you as a mount so if you trigger an AOO it can target either you or the mount. Further the enemy can grapple the familiar and take it off of your shoulder, or simply attack it if it is within reach or with a ranged weapon.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
Maybe. You will average a lot more damage using shadowblade than with a cantrip because of the bonus action attack you can get. You will average a lot more whether or not you have a familiar on your shoulder.
For example a 7th level Rogue with a familiar and an 18 dexterity going against a 15 AC on a bright sunny day using shadowblade and TWF with a shortsword will average 25DPR, in dim light it would be 29 DPR. The same Rogue using Booming Blade and a rapier will average 16 (not counting movement damage)
As far as AOOs, the familiar is essentially using you as a mount so if you trigger an AOO it can target either you or the mount. Further the enemy can grapple the familiar and take it off of your shoulder, or simply attack it if it is within reach or with a ranged weapon.
True, though most melee rogues generally try not to provoke AOOs, either through Disengage or taking something like Mobile. If DM wishes to kill your familiar off your shoulder instead of hit you, that's their prerogative. It's probably less effective than just hitting the rogue, though.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
Maybe. You will average a lot more damage using shadowblade than with a cantrip because of the bonus action attack you can get. You will average a lot more whether or not you have a familiar on your shoulder.
For example a 7th level Rogue with a familiar and an 18 dexterity going against a 15 AC on a bright sunny day using shadowblade and TWF with a shortsword will average 25DPR, in dim light it would be 29 DPR. The same Rogue using Booming Blade and a rapier will average 16 (not counting movement damage)
I don't doubt that at that level the Shadow Blade does more average damage when used in two-weapon fighting, however, it comes at the cost of not skirmishing with Disengage, requiring the Mobile feat (and thus less Dex) or taking punishment from the enemy. I'd also be interested to know how much closer the DPR calcs get just by giving them both a +1 weapon (not unusual by 7th level).
I don't doubt that at that level the Shadow Blade does more average damage when used in two-weapon fighting, however, it comes at the cost of not skirmishing with Disengage, requiring the Mobile feat (and thus less Dex) or taking punishment from the enemy. I'd also be interested to know how much closer the DPR calcs get just by giving them both a +1 weapon (not unusual by 7th level).
This is not true. There is no difference (spell slot not withstanding). The issue is a Rogue can only get one sneak attack per turn, you make the decision to use TWF AFTER your action attack is resolved.
So if you are using shadowblade and you miss, then you use TWF to try and land your sneak and take an AOO when you back up. If you hit with shadowblade, then you disengage and back off just like you would with booming blade, so there is no difference here.
The thing with Booming blade is do not have this option. If you miss you get no sneak attack, PERIOD.
True, though most melee rogues generally try not to provoke AOOs, either through Disengage or taking something like Mobile. If DM wishes to kill your familiar off your shoulder instead of hit you, that's their prerogative. It's probably less effective than just hitting the rogue, though.
I terms of statistics if you can attack a familiar with an action it is almost always statistically better to attack the familiar. The Familiar is an independent party member that gets a full action every turn. The most efficient way to fight is generally to eliminate actions as soon as you can, giving the opponent fewer actions to use over the course of a battle.
Familiars have a very low AC and 1 hit kills it. So in terms of action economy you use 1 attack and the party usually has one less action (and one less reaction) for the entire rest of the battle. Unless you can reasonably expect to down another party member before his turn it is almost never statistically better to attack something else. This is more true because familiars actually stay down (no healing word to bring them back).
That is not true if you need to use a reaction-ready action to attack as now the action cost is much higher (especially if you have multiattack) and you are depending on the trigger condition coming into play, but if it is one attack to get the familiar, the math almost always supports attacking the familiar vs attacking the party member.
I think every character tries to avoid AOOs and Rogues are better at it than most, but I don't think you are using disengage every turn as an Arcane Trickster. If you do you are giving up a ton of utility (and control) with mage hand legerdemain.
I am curious, what are some other good cantrips to use as part of the Extra Attack feature that are not Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
For example, is it worth giving up one attack (or damage cantrip) to cast Blade Ward to enhance your defense or Gust to push an enemy away? What are some of the more creative cantrip choices beyond just dealing damage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I am curious, what are some other good cantrips to use as part of the Extra Attack feature that are not Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
For example, is it worth giving up one attack (or damage cantrip) to cast Blade Ward to enhance your defense or Gust to push an enemy away? What are some of the more creative cantrip choices beyond just dealing damage?
Not so much Gust, but the other environmental control cantrips (Shape Water and Mold Earth) can certainly be useful to cast situationally (if you need some cover, for example). Message maybe if you need to say something to teammate that the enemy won't hear. Minor Illusion can also provide a unique kind of cover or be used to confuse or distract in the right circumstances.
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times. And since the feature also doesn't limit you to wizard cantrips, you may also wish to cast Spare the Dying or Guidance if you have them by feat or multiclass. Guidance in particular may come in handy if you wish to Grapple or Shove with your other attack since you may cast the cantrip before the attack.
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times. And since the feature also doesn't limit you to wizard cantrips, you may also wish to cast Spare the Dying or Guidance if you have them by feat or multiclass. Guidance in particular may come in handy if you wish to Grapple or Shove with your other attack since you may cast the cantrip before the attack.
Thats really interesting. If a DM allows it (since as you say, it feels like a rules glitch and not RAI) it could make for a very strong Battlesmith multiclass, since you could heal your Steel Defender as part of your Attack action using Mending. Or heal yourself if the Autognome makes it into the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times.
Where in the Bladesinger feature do you get the idea that the casting time would be reduced? All I see is a rule letting you replace an attack with Mending, not a rule saying Mending is done casting by the end of your turn.
Remember, it's always been the case that you could cast Mending during combat. There's never been a guarantee your spells complete casting on the turn you start casting them.
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times.
Where in the Bladesinger feature do you get the idea that the casting time would be reduced? All I see is a rule letting you replace an attack with Mending, not a rule saying Mending is done casting by the end of your turn.
Remember, it's always been the case that you could cast Mending during combat. There's never been a guarantee your spells complete casting on the turn you start casting them.
Well the rules say you can replace an attack with a cantrip, which would generally mean you can cast it as part of an action. I have never seen a table that had you start casting it as part of an attack and continue over the next 9 tunrs.
I have seen DMs at tables I play handle this two different ways:
1. Most of them allow mending to be cast as part of an attack action. So a bladesinger can cast this a lot faster than a non-bladesinger. I think this is RAW
2. Some DMs exempt Mending from the bladesinger extra attack. I think this is RAI.
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times.
Where in the Bladesinger feature do you get the idea that the casting time would be reduced? All I see is a rule letting you replace an attack with Mending, not a rule saying Mending is done casting by the end of your turn.
Remember, it's always been the case that you could cast Mending during combat. There's never been a guarantee your spells complete casting on the turn you start casting them.
Because changing the casting time is literally what the Bladesinger feature does. No cantrip in the game has a casting time of "1 attack" and replacing an attack in the Attack action does not fulfill a casting time of "1 action".
I am curious, what are some other good cantrips to use as part of the Extra Attack feature that are not Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
For example, is it worth giving up one attack (or damage cantrip) to cast Blade Ward to enhance your defense or Gust to push an enemy away? What are some of the more creative cantrip choices beyond just dealing damage?
Spells like. Thorn Whip and Lightning Lure are good choices. One attack to bring them close and a second attack to do stabby things. Create Bonfire would also be an option of you have the Sentinel feat. Light a literal fire under their a** and them make sure they can't leave.
I am curious, what are some other good cantrips to use as part of the Extra Attack feature that are not Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
For example, is it worth giving up one attack (or damage cantrip) to cast Blade Ward to enhance your defense or Gust to push an enemy away? What are some of the more creative cantrip choices beyond just dealing damage?
Spells like. Thorn Whip and Lightning Lure are good choices. One attack to bring them close and a second attack to do stabby things. Create Bonfire would also be an option of you have the Sentinel feat. Light a literal fire under their a** and them make sure they can't leave.
Very interesting ideas, although Im not a big fan on the "pull and slash" combo for Lightning Lure because if you fail to pull them then you dont get to use your weapon attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DMs are free to do that if they want, I suppose, but the game is designed around the assumption rogues are sneak attacking every round. All this does is enable that. And I don't see how it's a "loophole". It's an ally within 5ft of your target -- it's pretty clear.
The rule doesn't call for an ally within 5ft of your target. It calls for an enemy of the target within 5ft of the target. Is an animal which has taken no aggressive actions towards your target other than sitting on your shoulder considered an enemy to your target? Debatable.
If it takes the help action, then it can be considered an enemy but can be shot down immediately, especially when considering the shenanigans of "my familiar uses help action and then hides in my pocket".
I called it a loophole because whilst RAW, it's a way to avoid AOO's. Personally, I would allow the use of the familiar as an enemy of your enemy and able to use the help action if it is 100% of the time in harm's way. And that means AOO unless it's an owl.
Fair point. Familiars cannot attack, except for those acquired via Pact of the Chain. They can be used to deliver spells with a range of Touch, but only with their reaction on the attached spellcaster's turn. So there presence alone might not be enough to justify calling them an enemy. The ones summoned by the base version of the spell certainly cannot threaten targets on their own.
It's difficult for me to reconcile the logic needed to define an enemy as anything other than "a creature with a hostile relationship to you". Requiring a hostile action (or the ability to threaten as @Jounichi1983 suggests) makes everything more complicated.
For example, a player that moves next to what would be an enemy and Dodges would not be able to count for enabling sneak attack, or if they had to Dash to get next to them they wouldn't count. Would they be considered a valid enemy when the opposing creature attacks them or would they have to wait a full round to be considered an enemy? And if it were based on the ability to threaten, then a creature engaged in the fight who becomes paralyzed or stunned ceases to be an enemy to the opposition despite likely still being a target of them.
Since "enemy" goes undefined mechanically in the books as far as I can tell, I can't imagine it means anything other than its common language definition -- "someone or something that is hostile", which the familiar clearly is.
Again, I haven't really been talking about the Help action here. That said, if the rogue the familiar is mounted on moves away, you can take an AOO on the rogue. That's how the mounted rules work. If the rogue does something that allows them to avoid the AOO, then they have used an ability the game intends them to have to do so. I don't see any reason this is more cheesy than simply using an owl -- which you seem to be fine with?
Even if the enemy cannot take an aggressive Action, there might still be a Bonus Action or Reaction (like an Opportunity Attack) that could threaten them. The real issue with the Familiar is it cannot act on its own to threaten. It can only do so as an extension of their spellcaster.
Though I do think a fun house rule would be letting War Caster work in conjunction with the familiar, so if an enemy retreats them them the spellcaster can cast a single target 1 action spell as their Reaction.
As far as AOOs, the familiar is essentially using you as a mount so if you trigger an AOO it can target either you or the mount. Further the enemy can grapple the familiar and take it off of your shoulder, or simply attack it if it is within reach or with a ranged weapon.
Maybe. You will average a lot more damage using shadowblade than with a cantrip because of the bonus action attack you can get. You will average a lot more whether or not you have a familiar on your shoulder.
For example a 7th level Rogue with a familiar and an 18 dexterity going against a 15 AC on a bright sunny day using shadowblade and TWF with a shortsword will average 25DPR, in dim light it would be 29 DPR. The same Rogue using Booming Blade and a rapier will average 16 (not counting movement damage)
True, though most melee rogues generally try not to provoke AOOs, either through Disengage or taking something like Mobile. If DM wishes to kill your familiar off your shoulder instead of hit you, that's their prerogative. It's probably less effective than just hitting the rogue, though.
I don't doubt that at that level the Shadow Blade does more average damage when used in two-weapon fighting, however, it comes at the cost of not skirmishing with Disengage, requiring the Mobile feat (and thus less Dex) or taking punishment from the enemy. I'd also be interested to know how much closer the DPR calcs get just by giving them both a +1 weapon (not unusual by 7th level).
This is not true. There is no difference (spell slot not withstanding). The issue is a Rogue can only get one sneak attack per turn, you make the decision to use TWF AFTER your action attack is resolved.
So if you are using shadowblade and you miss, then you use TWF to try and land your sneak and take an AOO when you back up. If you hit with shadowblade, then you disengage and back off just like you would with booming blade, so there is no difference here.
The thing with Booming blade is do not have this option. If you miss you get no sneak attack, PERIOD.
I terms of statistics if you can attack a familiar with an action it is almost always statistically better to attack the familiar. The Familiar is an independent party member that gets a full action every turn. The most efficient way to fight is generally to eliminate actions as soon as you can, giving the opponent fewer actions to use over the course of a battle.
Familiars have a very low AC and 1 hit kills it. So in terms of action economy you use 1 attack and the party usually has one less action (and one less reaction) for the entire rest of the battle. Unless you can reasonably expect to down another party member before his turn it is almost never statistically better to attack something else. This is more true because familiars actually stay down (no healing word to bring them back).
That is not true if you need to use a reaction-ready action to attack as now the action cost is much higher (especially if you have multiattack) and you are depending on the trigger condition coming into play, but if it is one attack to get the familiar, the math almost always supports attacking the familiar vs attacking the party member.
I think every character tries to avoid AOOs and Rogues are better at it than most, but I don't think you are using disengage every turn as an Arcane Trickster. If you do you are giving up a ton of utility (and control) with mage hand legerdemain.
If you dual wield how are you casting spells and that's using two hands....hmmm
I am curious, what are some other good cantrips to use as part of the Extra Attack feature that are not Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
For example, is it worth giving up one attack (or damage cantrip) to cast Blade Ward to enhance your defense or Gust to push an enemy away? What are some of the more creative cantrip choices beyond just dealing damage?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Oh yeah, blade ward can be super useful, as can a spell like shocking grasp, or if you are going for ranged combat then fire bolt + crossbow bolt is a nice combo too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not so much Gust, but the other environmental control cantrips (Shape Water and Mold Earth) can certainly be useful to cast situationally (if you need some cover, for example). Message maybe if you need to say something to teammate that the enemy won't hear. Minor Illusion can also provide a unique kind of cover or be used to confuse or distract in the right circumstances.
I doubt it's useful, but there's also the rules glitch that allows the reduction in casting time for Mending since the Bladesinger feature doesn't limit you to cantrips with 1 action casting times. And since the feature also doesn't limit you to wizard cantrips, you may also wish to cast Spare the Dying or Guidance if you have them by feat or multiclass. Guidance in particular may come in handy if you wish to Grapple or Shove with your other attack since you may cast the cantrip before the attack.
Thats really interesting. If a DM allows it (since as you say, it feels like a rules glitch and not RAI) it could make for a very strong Battlesmith multiclass, since you could heal your Steel Defender as part of your Attack action using Mending. Or heal yourself if the Autognome makes it into the game.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Where in the Bladesinger feature do you get the idea that the casting time would be reduced? All I see is a rule letting you replace an attack with Mending, not a rule saying Mending is done casting by the end of your turn.
Remember, it's always been the case that you could cast Mending during combat. There's never been a guarantee your spells complete casting on the turn you start casting them.
Well the rules say you can replace an attack with a cantrip, which would generally mean you can cast it as part of an action. I have never seen a table that had you start casting it as part of an attack and continue over the next 9 tunrs.
I have seen DMs at tables I play handle this two different ways:
1. Most of them allow mending to be cast as part of an attack action. So a bladesinger can cast this a lot faster than a non-bladesinger. I think this is RAW
2. Some DMs exempt Mending from the bladesinger extra attack. I think this is RAI.
Because changing the casting time is literally what the Bladesinger feature does. No cantrip in the game has a casting time of "1 attack" and replacing an attack in the Attack action does not fulfill a casting time of "1 action".
Technically correct, but even you admit it is a glitch. Not that it matters outside a weird circumstance. But I suspect most GMs wont allow it.
Spells like. Thorn Whip and Lightning Lure are good choices. One attack to bring them close and a second attack to do stabby things. Create Bonfire would also be an option of you have the Sentinel feat. Light a literal fire under their a** and them make sure they can't leave.
Very interesting ideas, although Im not a big fan on the "pull and slash" combo for Lightning Lure because if you fail to pull them then you dont get to use your weapon attack.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!