Quote from Mdhe >>

Quote from Mairondil >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

I think this one has been debated enough in the past, the act of spewing the magical energy is not an attack, it's breathing.

Whereas Inflict Wounds specifically says make an melee spell attack:

Make a melee spell attack against a creature you can reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d10 necrotic damage.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st.

I rule Dragon's Breath is fine for a familiar but Inflict Wound is not, even if it is a touch spell. EDIT: A quick rethink on this, it's not the familiar's action that casts Inflict Wounds, it's their reaction to cast the PC's spell. Ooof this one is tough to decide.

 Let me make it a little easier: the text of Find Familiar tells you to use your own Spell Attack modifier for spells delivered via your familiar. If you couldn't deliver spell attacks through your familiar, they would not include rules that tell you how to calculate spell attack rolls delivered via your familiar.

For what it's worth, I let my players use Dragon's Breath on their familiars. It very occasionally leads to a funny surprise attack, but they also found out real quick that using a 2nd level spell slot to empower a creature with 2 HP and 13 AC was not a super efficient strategy for open combat.

Totally agree. It's certainly an epic scene for the wizard to say "Rain Fire!" and have this little barn owl strafe a clustered group of minions when you're at level 3. But by level 6 or 9 there are so many other things to concentrate on or use a L2 slot.

So in situations like this, the DM decides, right? 

Quote from simonehanson3gmailcom >>

So in situations like this, the DM decides, right? 

The DM is always the ultimate adjudicator.

Ask your DM and then work it out on how a familiar functions in "your" campaign. If your group can come to a consensus, well, there ya go!

Rather than create a new Find Familiar thread, I'm just going to add a related question here. The RAW of the spell says:

Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Does choosing your familiar to be a celestial, fey or fiend make any difference whatsoever? For example, if I choose my familiar to be a fey, does it get fey powers like resistance to being charmed, etc.? If so, this makes the spell really powerful--more powerful than it already is. And if choosing celestial, fey or fiend doesn't confer the relevant abilities of these types of creatures, why is this part of the spell at all? Help lol

Quote from Shoktona70 >>

Rather than create a new Find Familiar thread, I'm just going to add a related question here. The RAW of the spell says:

Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Does choosing your familiar to be a celestial, fey or fiend make any difference whatsoever? For example, if I choose my familiar to be a fey, does it get fey powers like resistance to being charmed, etc.? If so, this makes the spell really powerful--more powerful than it already is. And if choosing celestial, fey or fiend doesn't confer the relevant abilities of these types of creatures, why is this part of the spell at all? Help lol

I'm not seeing anything that is universal to all, celestial, fey, or fiend types. Just because lots of a particular type of creature has the same kind of features does not mean it's universal. 

Basically I see that blurb to be about saying your familiar wouldn't fall under standard thinking for beasts.

It doesn't add any baseline condition immunities or damage resistances/immunities. There are a handful of spells and other effects that could respond differently to it depending on type, but they're not super common.

Changing the creature type to fey/fiend/celestial doesn't have much distinction between them. The main change is so enemies cannot use lower level spells that affect Beasts to affect your familiar such as Animal Messenger, Animal Friendship or anyone to use Beast Bond on it. Also so nobody can polymorph into a copy of it using a lower level spell. It also gives DMs an easier way to defend against familiars using something like the Forbiddance spell. 

It's a balancing mechanic.

It also just adds some flavor to the spell. Bonding a celestial spirit is different than bonding a fiend, and some players might lean into that kind of thing as a way to flesh out their character.

I just thought of something I never considered before ...

Isn't there a ranger ability that allows them to check out their surroundings and it responds by telling them if there are fiends or celestials?  Or is that a Paladin ability?

It seems almost every spellcaster with a familiar might pop up if that were the case, and that might get interesting or it could be so much "noise" that the real intent of the ability is circumvented.

Rangers can detect Favored Foes (if you take that instead of the Tasha's replacement), and yeah Paladins can sense Celestial, Fiend, and Undead.

Quote from simonehanson3gmailcom >>

That’s what confuses me. it can take other actions as normal. A poisonous snake would bite. That’s normal for a snake. I’m still confused.

 But it's not a normal snake. It's a familiar. It's akin to having an Optimus Prime toy. The 'real' Optimus has a ray gun he can fire around - the toy has a gun, but it can't fire any lazors. That's how familiars work too. A snake has the fangs, but cannot bite. 

On Dragon's Breath: Any action that calls for an initiative roll is an attack. It's just one of those cases where the english language isn't clear enough - or at it has been applied to the game. But you cannot pour magical flame over someone and then be all like 'what? I done nothin' to you!' It's an attack.

Quote from Acromos >>

On Dragon's Breath: Any action that calls for an initiative roll is an attack. It's just one of those cases where the english language isn't clear enough - or at it has been applied to the game. But you cannot pour magical flame over someone and then be all like 'what? I done nothin' to you!' It's an attack.

I disagree with your conclusion but I absolutely agree that the language isn't clear enough. I wish they would just capitalize words when they're referring to a game term rather than using the same word generically: Attack for the Attack Action, Move for using any of a Creature's speed, etc. I see how that would get kind of awkward to read but it would clarify these kinds of situations greatly.

Quote from Acromos >>

On Dragon's Breath: Any action that calls for an initiative roll is an attack. It's just one of those cases where the english language isn't clear enough - or at it has been applied to the game. But you cannot pour magical flame over someone and then be all like 'what? I done nothin' to you!' It's an attack.

 That’s not true. The rules define what an attack is and that’s not the definition. There’s actually a whole section in chapter 9 called “making an attack.” You should read it some time. The basic point of it is that an attack requires an attack roll. That’s actually why they call it an attack roll. If there’s no attack roll then it’s not an attack. Since using dragons breath doesn’t include an attack roll then it doesn’t count as an attack. On top of that find familiar has a part that tells you about familiars and their place in Initiative. You should read that too sometime. It actually says that whenever combat happens a familiar rolls initiative just like everything else in combat. If having a place in initiative counted as an attack like you said then familiars wouldn’t be allowed to do anything in combat at all. Since they can take actions during combat then it can’t possibly be true that everything in initiative is an attack. Put those two things together and it becomes pretty clear that a familiar can use dragon’s breath. That may not be what they intended but is what they actually wrote in the book.

Quote from AWierdPotato >>

 That’s not true.

That may be so. But by your definition - and the definition of the rules - your mage can cast fireball after fireball into a crowd of innocents in the marketplace, and later in court claim 'I don't know what all the fuzz is about, I haven't attacked anyone'. 

Maybe you think that's perfectly reasonable. I don't. And thus, I consider harmful actions such as spewing flame on others to be an attack. 

Question related to this discussion about attack rolls and Attack action: can familiar grapple or shove? It is Attack action, but does not use attack roll, just ability check.

Quote from Aasimar11 >>

Question related to this discussion about attack rolls and Attack action: can familiar grapple or shove? It is Attack action, but does not use attack roll, just ability check.

I think you answered your own question :)

I agree that since grapple and shove is part of Attack action, it is not allowed for a familiar. 

There was mentioned in this discussion earlier, that everythig with attack roll is an attack and everything without attack roll is not an attack. My question was meant to point out that this might not be the case. Grapple and shove is still considered an attack even though they do not involve attack roll.

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from AWierdPotato >>

 That’s not true.

That may be so. But by your definition - and the definition of the rules - your mage can cast fireball after fireball into a crowd of innocents in the marketplace, and later in court claim 'I don't know what all the fuzz is about, I haven't attacked anyone'. 

Maybe you think that's perfectly reasonable. I don't. And thus, I consider harmful actions such as spewing flame on others to be an attack. 

 There’s a difference between the common language definition of an attack and a game mechanics definition of an attack. To you and me and the theoretical judge and jury of that court that would by all means meet the colloquial definition of an attack. But from a mechanical RAW standpoint it doesn’t. If you punch all the rules into an AI without giving it any common language definitions of what “attacking” means or if you at least have it a specific delineation between the two concepts of “colloquial language and definitions” versus “rule mechanic language and definitions” and ask it if that would qualify as an “attack” according to the rules the thing would say no.

Quote from Aasimar11 >>

I agree that since grapple and shove is part of Attack action, it is not allowed for a familiar. 

There was mentioned in this discussion earlier, that everythig with attack roll is an attack and everything without attack roll is not an attack. My question was meant to point out that this might not be the case. Grapple and shove is still considered an attack even though they do not involve attack roll.

 Shoving and grappling are specifically called out as Attacks by the rules definition of what an attack is and so they specifically count as “attacks.” Plus, they both do require attack rolls of a sort with two differences. Instead of proficiency for the attack roll being determined by any specific weapon it is determined by a skill and instead of going against a creature’s static AC based on equipped armor it goes against an opposed roll which also has a bonus based on proficiency with a skill.

An Attack bonus is essentially just like any bonus applied to an ability check made with a skill attached to it. Only difference is that instead of adding proficiency based on any skill it’s based on proficiency with a piece of equipment. In that regard it is a lot like an ability check made with a tool instead of a skill. AC is essentially exactly the same mechanically as passive score for a skill only instead of adding proficiency bonus based on if you are proficient in that skill or not it adds a flat bonus based on the armor you’re wearing. So in essence an Attack roll is a lot like any other ability check made against any passive score just like stealth against perception as an example. Grappling and shoving are just the combat equivalent of any other contested ability check.

Forcing a saving throw requires absolutely no roll on the part of the active creature who does the forcing. So a familiar can’t actively make an Attack under RAW but it can technically force another creature to actively make a saving throw. I didn’t write the rules I just read them.

Quote from AWierdPotato >>

 There’s a difference between the common language definition of an attack and a game mechanics definition of an attack.

 You think that's the difference, but it's not.

This is the difference: You are looking for a loophole. I'm not.

You want attack to mean the Attack Action. But that's not the case. This is just attack. A familiar cannot attack. At all. It cannot use the Attack Action - but it also cannot perform any other form of attack. If they meant Attack Action, they would have written Attack Action. You'll notice they wrote attack. Lower case first letter and everything.

What it literally says in the description is that the familiar cannot make any sort of attack what so ever.

Then they go on to specify how it can deliver spells for you, ruining everything and making something of a statement regarding their overall cognitive abilities. But that's another matter, and another discussion entirely.