The imp's feature says: "The imp magically turns invisible until it attacks or until its concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell)..." (link) (emphasis added)
The Find Familiar spell says: "when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll." (link) (emphasis added)
Let's consider a spell with the range of touch: the Shocking Grasp spell, which says: "Make a melee spell attack against the target." (link) (emphasis added)
Compare that with a different spell with the range of touch: Guidance, which says: "You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends." (link)
Nowhere does Guidance specify that the caster is making an attack. You may notice that Guidance is a concentration spell, but the imp isn't the one holding concentration on the spell. You are. I'd say that it wouldn't break invisibility, but non-attack concentration spells are a bit of an edge case here that may be up to the discretion of the DM.
It seems clear that whether or not the imp remains invisible when casting depends on the spell. If it's casting Shocking Grasp (or another spell with an attack), it becomes visible, because it is making an attack when it delivers the spell "as if it had cast the spell." If it's casting a non-attack non-concentration spell, it definitely remains invisible.
If it's casting a non-attack concentration spell (such as Guidance), I'd ask your DM, as it's a bit less clear. I briefly checked the Sage Advice Compendium, and I didn't see any ruling on this. Personally, I'd say it doesn't break the invisibility.
I disagree. The wording is "as if" not "it does". What I mean is that the wording suggests that it works similarly to if it had cast the spell but it is not the same. If WOTC meant it that way they could have just said that your familiar casts the spell for you which would have made it much easier to write but in stead they put the phrase "as if" implying that it is not the same. Also if you look at the invisibility that it has it says that if the creature attacks or casts implying the the creature is taking the ACTION make weapon attack or the ACTION Cast a spell which it is not doing. It is using its reaction to become a conduit for your spell which does not meet the qualifications for losing its invisibility. Now as a DM you have full authority to say that is game breaking and I don't want it in my campaign thats find but rules as written there is no violation occurring.
I disagree. The wording is "as if" not "it does". What I mean is that the wording suggests that it works similarly to if it had cast the spell but it is not the same. If WOTC meant it that way they could have just said that your familiar casts the spell for you which would have made it much easier to write but in stead they put the phrase "as if" implying that it is not the same. Also if you look at the invisibility that it has it says that if the creature attacks or casts implying the the creature is taking the ACTION make weapon attack or the ACTION Cast a spell which it is not doing. It is using its reaction to become a conduit for your spell which does not meet the qualifications for losing its invisibility. Now as a DM you have full authority to say that is game breaking and I don't want it in my campaign thats find but rules as written there is no violation occurring.
Incorrect, and it has nothing to do with the type of action. "As if it had cast the spell" literally means "following all the rules and consequences associated with casting this particular spell, as if it had cast the spell itself".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The problem with this ruling is that Bestow Curse doesn't explicitly include an "attack roll". Since it is concentration, invisibility would drop regardless.
If Mike was responding to the full question, the implication is that an "attack" is more broadly defined than making an "attack roll".
Single word answers can be painfully unclear.
Edited for correctness: According to this ruling, and the one in my following post, an "Attack" is not limited to actions that include an "attack roll".
What about spells like beast bond, beast sense, and warding bond. Does the familiar get the benefit of those spells "as if it has cast the spell" too? Maybe the answer is yes, but that seems weird to me.
"If you cast a concentration spell through your familiar, you must concentrate." ~Jeremy Crawford
The Imp is taking the action to deliver the spell, but the Warlock is still the one on the other end of the magic. The Warlock holds concentration as well as benefits from those types of spells.
Edit: This ruling also requires me to revise my previous post. Bestow Curse counts as an attack. It does not affect the Imp's concentration.
The problem with this ruling is that Bestow Curse doesn't explicitly include an "attack roll". Since it is concentration, invisibility would drop regardless.
If Mike was responding to the full question, the implication is that an "attack" is more broadly defined than making an "attack roll".
Single word answers can be painfully unclear.
I don't think that is the most likely interpretation of Mike's answer. The definition of "an attack" is not something that is tossed around lightly.
Far more likely, in my opinion, is that the imp's invisibility was supposed to be just a normal invisibility that should end on either an attack or casting a spell - but the authors got lazy when writing the imp stat block and left out mention of casting a spell because imps can't cast spells.
The question asked to Mike left out all that key info and expected him to do the research before answering (that imp invisibility ends on attack only and Bestow Curse has no attack). Mike answered like a DM would, and like I would. It isn't Greater Invisibly so it defaults to ending under normal invisibility conditions.
They didn't really get rid of touch attacks... Shocking Grasp is still kicking it like always. What they got rid of was having a discrete Touch AC, and Touch Attack Modifier. Touch is now just a discrete range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In my games, and I suspect the intent of the designers, the requirement for a spell to count as an attack would be that it involves either an attack roll, a saving throw or dealing damage (mostly added because of magic missile).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
IMHO the Imp is being used as a spell focus, thus it stays invisible. It's the warlock performing the spell cast, since the Imp has no spell casting ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
I think the easiest way to get around this is to get your Imp to cast Invisibility right after the spell. Since its using its Reaction to cast the touch spell, it still has its Action it can use afterword. So use Reaction to cast touch spell coming out of Invisibility, then right away use your Imp's Action to go back Invisible and move away.
I disagree. The wording is "as if" not "it does". What I mean is that the wording suggests that it works similarly to if it had cast the spell but it is not the same. If WOTC meant it that way they could have just said that your familiar casts the spell for you which would have made it much easier to write but in stead they put the phrase "as if" implying that it is not the same. Also if you look at the invisibility that it has it says that if the creature attacks or casts implying the the creature is taking the ACTION make weapon attack or the ACTION Cast a spell which it is not doing. It is using its reaction to become a conduit for your spell which does not meet the qualifications for losing its invisibility. Now as a DM you have full authority to say that is game breaking and I don't want it in my campaign thats find but rules as written there is no violation occurring.
Incorrect, and it has nothing to do with the type of action. "As if it had cast the spell" literally means "following all the rules and consequences associated with casting this particular spell, as if it had cast the spell itself".
Would you agree you could use the Imp's Reaction to cast the spell, thus removing invisibility, but then use the Imp's remaining Action to just cast Invisibility again on itself?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would a warlock's invisible imp stay invisible if you cast a touch spell through it?
The imp only says it becomes visible if it attacks, and a spell isn't attacking.
The imp's feature says: "The imp magically turns invisible until it attacks or until its concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell)..." (link) (emphasis added)
The Find Familiar spell says: "when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll." (link) (emphasis added)
Let's consider a spell with the range of touch: the Shocking Grasp spell, which says: "Make a melee spell attack against the target." (link) (emphasis added)
Compare that with a different spell with the range of touch: Guidance, which says: "You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends." (link)
Nowhere does Guidance specify that the caster is making an attack. You may notice that Guidance is a concentration spell, but the imp isn't the one holding concentration on the spell. You are. I'd say that it wouldn't break invisibility, but non-attack concentration spells are a bit of an edge case here that may be up to the discretion of the DM.
It seems clear that whether or not the imp remains invisible when casting depends on the spell. If it's casting Shocking Grasp (or another spell with an attack), it becomes visible, because it is making an attack when it delivers the spell "as if it had cast the spell." If it's casting a non-attack non-concentration spell, it definitely remains invisible.
If it's casting a non-attack concentration spell (such as Guidance), I'd ask your DM, as it's a bit less clear. I briefly checked the Sage Advice Compendium, and I didn't see any ruling on this. Personally, I'd say it doesn't break the invisibility.
Jazz Jungle Japes is Best Jungle Japes
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation .
I disagree. The wording is "as if" not "it does". What I mean is that the wording suggests that it works similarly to if it had cast the spell but it is not the same. If WOTC meant it that way they could have just said that your familiar casts the spell for you which would have made it much easier to write but in stead they put the phrase "as if" implying that it is not the same. Also if you look at the invisibility that it has it says that if the creature attacks or casts implying the the creature is taking the ACTION make weapon attack or the ACTION Cast a spell which it is not doing. It is using its reaction to become a conduit for your spell which does not meet the qualifications for losing its invisibility. Now as a DM you have full authority to say that is game breaking and I don't want it in my campaign thats find but rules as written there is no violation occurring.
Incorrect, and it has nothing to do with the type of action. "As if it had cast the spell" literally means "following all the rules and consequences associated with casting this particular spell, as if it had cast the spell itself".
It attacked; invisibility drops.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
[Sage Advice]
The problem with this ruling is that Bestow Curse doesn't explicitly include an "attack roll".
Since it is concentration, invisibility would drop regardless.If Mike was responding to the full question, the implication is that an "attack" is more broadly defined than making an "attack roll".Single word answers can be painfully unclear.Edited for correctness: According to this ruling, and the one in my following post, an "Attack" is not limited to actions that include an "attack roll".
What about spells like beast bond, beast sense, and warding bond. Does the familiar get the benefit of those spells "as if it has cast the spell" too? Maybe the answer is yes, but that seems weird to me.
[Sage Advice]
The Imp is taking the action to deliver the spell, but the Warlock is still the one on the other end of the magic. The Warlock holds concentration as well as benefits from those types of spells.
Edit: This ruling also requires me to revise my previous post. Bestow Curse counts as an attack. It does not affect the Imp's concentration.
I don't think that is the most likely interpretation of Mike's answer. The definition of "an attack" is not something that is tossed around lightly.
Far more likely, in my opinion, is that the imp's invisibility was supposed to be just a normal invisibility that should end on either an attack or casting a spell - but the authors got lazy when writing the imp stat block and left out mention of casting a spell because imps can't cast spells.
The question asked to Mike left out all that key info and expected him to do the research before answering (that imp invisibility ends on attack only and Bestow Curse has no attack). Mike answered like a DM would, and like I would. It isn't Greater Invisibly so it defaults to ending under normal invisibility conditions.
That's probably true.
5e got rid of "Touch Attacks", so this is probably one of the things that got lost in translation.
They didn't really get rid of touch attacks... Shocking Grasp is still kicking it like always. What they got rid of was having a discrete Touch AC, and Touch Attack Modifier. Touch is now just a discrete range.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In my games, and I suspect the intent of the designers, the requirement for a spell to count as an attack would be that it involves either an attack roll, a saving throw or dealing damage (mostly added because of magic missile).
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
That's a decent houserule for simplicity's sake, but is certainly not the intent of the designers. Charm Person is not an attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
IMHO the Imp is being used as a spell focus, thus it stays invisible. It's the warlock performing the spell cast, since the Imp has no spell casting ability.
playing since 1986
I think the easiest way to get around this is to get your Imp to cast Invisibility right after the spell. Since its using its Reaction to cast the touch spell, it still has its Action it can use afterword. So use Reaction to cast touch spell coming out of Invisibility, then right away use your Imp's Action to go back Invisible and move away.
Would you agree you could use the Imp's Reaction to cast the spell, thus removing invisibility, but then use the Imp's remaining Action to just cast Invisibility again on itself?