NEW] When you dismiss the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell to its pocket dimension, can it take any objects it’s wearing or carrying with it? No, the intent of find familiar is that any objects are left behind when the familiar vanishes. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.
So at the moment my wizard’s familiar has a pair of eyeglass rims fused to his head. I use it as a target for the light cantrip. The rims appear on different parts of the familiar when the form is changed. Does this mean that this form of fluff is overpowered? DM is fine with it but has likely not read this yet.
I can see an argument being made for items the familiar is attuned to or wearing like glasses or a scarf being allowed to travel with the Familiar as a house rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
this is why sage advice is not canon. There's often contradictory information given.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
this is why sage advice is not canon. There's often contradictory information given.
The Sage Advice website ( https://www.sageadvice.eu/ ) is not run or supported by WotC (hence why it says: "This is an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar to collect game designer tweets and help players of the best game ever created.") and merely collates tweets from the game devs. In this case Mike Mearls was answering a question based on his own DMing ("I'd say yes"). Only tweets from Jeremy Crawford were ever considered actual "sage advice" tweets, and since then it has been changed that his tweets are only his tweets, not sage advice, and only the statements made in the Sage Advice Compendium are actually Sage Advice.
So, in this case there is no contradiction. Mike gave a personal DM answer, while Jeremy clarified the Rules As Written and was submitted as official Sage Advice into the compendium.
JC has contradicted his own tweets from time to time as well. It's a great resource, but you cannot take it as gospel. It's the best advice site you can get, and advice is not canon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
NEW] When you dismiss the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell to its pocket dimension, can it take any objects it’s wearing or carrying with it? No, the intent of find familiar is that any objects are left behind when the familiar vanishes. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.
So at the moment my wizard’s familiar has a pair of eyeglass rims fused to his head. I use it as a target for the light cantrip. The rims appear on different parts of the familiar when the form is changed. Does this mean that this form of fluff is overpowered? DM is fine with it but has likely not read this yet.
One of the problems were familiars using magic items. This ruling makes that less useful but still possible
That errata will kind of be misplaced in my campaigns.Like many rules/errata I don't agree with. :)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Mergon, what possible reason would you have to take one of the most commonly taken, OP spells and make it even more powerful?
Familiars are incredible spies that also extend the range of Touch spells. Why do you think it needs even more capabilities?
I can see an argument being made for items the familiar is attuned to or wearing like glasses or a scarf being allowed to travel with the Familiar as a house rule.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Homebrew - Circle of the Living Machines Druid, Path of the Dragon Soul Barbarian
My hombrew Great Wyrm Dragons
So its funny but mike already answered this.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/familiar-object/
If you want to know me, Ask. I'm talkative from time to time.
this is why sage advice is not canon. There's often contradictory information given.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The Sage Advice website ( https://www.sageadvice.eu/ ) is not run or supported by WotC (hence why it says: "This is an unofficial D&D site made by Zoltar to collect game designer tweets and help players of the best game ever created.") and merely collates tweets from the game devs. In this case Mike Mearls was answering a question based on his own DMing ("I'd say yes"). Only tweets from Jeremy Crawford were ever considered actual "sage advice" tweets, and since then it has been changed that his tweets are only his tweets, not sage advice, and only the statements made in the Sage Advice Compendium are actually Sage Advice.
So, in this case there is no contradiction. Mike gave a personal DM answer, while Jeremy clarified the Rules As Written and was submitted as official Sage Advice into the compendium.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
JC has contradicted his own tweets from time to time as well. It's a great resource, but you cannot take it as gospel. It's the best advice site you can get, and advice is not canon.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha