Questions about Investment of the Chain Master

Quote from Kisten1701 >>

So my question is adjacent, and my sense is that people are going to disagree, but here it goes. Pact of the Chain lets you use an attack action to have the familiar attack using its reaction. I was interpreting Investment of the Chain Master to mean you could use your bonus action to have the familiar take the attack action perhaps as its reaction (per Pact of the Chain).  This is a greed as that should let the familiar still use its help action during its turn with an attack as a reaction. It changes the attack from action economy to bonus action economy. I can't say this is RAW, but it doesn't seem like a stretch interpretation?

The familiar would only be able to use one reaction. When you give up the attack for your familiar to use the Attack action, it is not using its Reaction. The timing isn't explicit, but it is presumably on the familiar's turn.

Quote from Kisten1701 >>

So my question is adjacent, and my sense is that people are going to disagree, but here it goes. Pact of the Chain lets you use an attack action to have the familiar attack using its reaction. I was interpreting Investment of the Chain Master to mean you could use your bonus action to have the familiar take the attack action perhaps as its reaction (per Pact of the Chain).  This is a greed as that should let the familiar still use its help action during its turn with an attack as a reaction. It changes the attack from action economy to bonus action economy. I can't say this is RAW, but it doesn't seem like a stretch interpretation?

 While it's not my take, I'd like to link the next reply from a different thread in case you want to follow this clean explanation and ruling:

Quote from David42 >>

Quote from TarodNet >>

Quote from Sunnyssundries >>

[...] The Sphinx has a +5 to hit roll, which is in line with most starting characters, and deals 1d4+2d6+3 radiant damage (investment of the Chain Master let's you turn the slashing damage into radiant). IMHO, you'll get way more mileage out of that than with a weapon, or Eldritch Blast at low levels. With the potential to attacks twice in one round (once in your turn, once in it's own turn) even more so. [...]

 Just for fairness, the timing for Quick Attack was discussed in Questions about Investment of the Chain Master. In my opinion, the familiar takes the Attack action during your turn, immediately after you take your Bonus Action, but the wording can be read the way you said as well.

 I'm just trying to understand why the familiar would make an attack on your turn. The rules for the find familiar spell state (2024):

"Combat. The familiar is an ally to you and your allies. It rolls its own Initiative and acts on its own turn. A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal."

The familiar has its own turn, it acts on its own initiative and it can't attack. 

The Pact of the Chain invocation allows:

"Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction."

Specifying that this costs the familiar its reaction implies that the attack takes place on your turn and replaces one of your attacks. 

However, the text of the Investment of the Chain Master invocation states:

"Quick Attack. As a Bonus Action, you can command the familiar to take the Attack action."

There is no requirement for the familiar to use its reaction. This text does not specify the attack happens on your turn and since the familiar can't take attacks normally this would appear to be a method to allow the familiar to make an attack on its own turn, not on the caster's turn. There is no reference here to the Pact of the Chain ability allowing the familiar to make an attack on your turn at the cost of its reaction. This ability allows you to spend a bonus action so the familiar can take the attack action on its turn. 

I can see how the Pact of the Chain ability could seem to confuse the issue but only if one assumes that the Investment ability is intended to do the same thing with no cost to the familiar ... however, without the cost of the reaction or any other indication that the attack happens immediately, I think the RAW is pretty clear that it just allows the familiar to take the attack action on its turn.

Is Pseudodragons Sting an attack action? In Sting there is no attack roll but saving throw, so I think it is not attack action, but magic action. I know this sounds silly because the name this action has, but I find it difficult to interpret the rules any other way.

Rules says magic action is to "Cast a spell, use a magic item, or use a magical feature", so I guess that Sting is magical feature and it should be treated same way as spells and Scare-ability that Quasit has. And that means warlocks can't use Investment of the Chain Master in this, because it says "you can command the familiar to take the Attack action."

And find familiar spell says "A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal.", but I would argue that magical features like Sting are attacks even if they are not attack actions.

Pact of the Chain says "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction." In this case words says attack, not attack action, so Sting should be ok.

Quote from Saku87 >>

Is Pseudodragons Sting an attack action? In Sting there is no attack roll but saving throw, so I think it is not attack action, but magic action. I know this sounds silly because the name this action has, but I find it difficult to interpret the rules any other way.

It is not an Attack action because it has no attack roll.

It is not a Magic action because nothing says it is magical.

It is just an Action. From the Playing the Game: "Player characters and monsters can also do things not covered by these actions. Many class features and other abilities provide additional action options, and you can improvise other actions."

This means that a Pact of the Chain Warlock can substitute their attack to allow the Pseudodragon to use its Bite, but not its Sting. It also means that the Sting can be used in an Atnimagic area (which would not be possible if it required a Magic action).

Quote from Saku87 >>

And find familiar spell says "A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal.", but I would argue that magical features like Sting are attacks even if they are not attack actions. 

I disagree with that. Just because an action can deal damage, doesn't make it an attack. The vocabulary throughout the rules of the game, in the glossary, in spells, in items... pretty much always ties "attacks" to attack rolls. If we start saying that any action that deals damage is an attack, it would screw up a lot of other rules.

For example if you had a weapon with an extra feature that deals damage on a saving throw, like this one: https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/9058872-thunderous-greatclub , you could reroll the damage of that extra feature with Savage Attacker, it would trigger Sneak Attacks, Rage Damage, Weapon Masteries... It would be a complete mess.

It might "feel" like an action named "Sting" should be considered an attack, but what of The Fire Elemental's Fire Aura? Would that be an attack? It deals damage after all... Okay it's not action, but then what? Bonus actions can't be attacks? Where does it say that only actions, bonus actions and reactions can be attacks? Nowhere, because that's not how attacks are defined. They're defined by Attack Rolls. Not by the fact that they can deal damage, and not by the kind of action economy that they use.
It's even clearer with the Quasit's Scare action: it's clearly not an attack. But what makes it different from Sting? Only the fact that it doesn't deal damage. And as we saw, just because there's damage, doesn't mean it's an attack.

Ok, but if it is not attack and Find familiar spell says that "A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal", does it mean that Pseudodragon can use Sting in it's own turn independently? In this case, why would any warlock substitute their attack to allow the Pseudodragon to use its Bite when Sting is free to use?

I myself have used my own house rule that when ability targets enemy, it is counted as attack even if there is not attack roll. Area effects like Fire Aura and Clap of Thunder doesn't target any enemy, so my house rule don't apply to them. Sting and Quasit's Scare has clear targets. Both those abilities even use word "target" multiple times. But as I said, this is just my own house rule, and I would want to learn what actual rules says.

Quote from Saku87 >>

In this case, why would any warlock substitute their attack to allow the Pseudodragon to use its Bite when Sting is free to use?

Because Bite actually deals damage, for once. And the DC for Sting is very low, unless you have Investment of the Chain Master. But this invocation is meant to favor abilities with a save, so it's kind of expected that you'd use it.
But to be fair, the case of the Pseudodragon is an outlier. For a CR1/4 creature, Sting is a very strong ability. So yes, you in fact SHOULD use it as much as possible.
And I don't think it's fair to make a general ruling based on this single example.

The biggest issue with your house rule is what I mentioned earlier: the game is full of attack riders, and if you consider everything that targets something an attack, things get crazy.
You cast Command at level 4, and the targets of the spell also take damage from Conjure Minor Elementals...

Quote from Saku87 >>

Ok, but if it is not attack and Find familiar spell says that "A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal", does it mean that Pseudodragon can use Sting in it's own turn independently? In this case, why would any warlock substitute their attack to allow the Pseudodragon to use its Bite when Sting is free to use?

Yes the "Sting" action is not an attack and thus it can be used even if the pseudodragon is a familiar.

Quote from Saku87 >>

I myself have used my own house rule that when ability targets enemy, it is counted as attack even if there is not attack roll. Area effects like Fire Aura and Clap of Thunder doesn't target any enemy, so my house rule don't apply to them. Sting and Quasit's Scare has clear targets. Both those abilities even use word "target" multiple times. But as I said, this is just my own house rule, and I would want to learn what actual rules says.

I would suggest against it. As @Natrel said, the rules are quite clear that to be an attack it should use an attack roll. Spells for example usually use either an attack roll or a saving throw and only the former count as attacks. Treating other abilities/features differently won't break the game but it certainly isn't needed either and it is just likely to add possibilities for confusion and wonkiness in interactions with other rules..

I understand problem with low DC, but when successful Sting does more damage, or did I understand something wrong?

"Bite. Melee Attack Roll: +4, reach 5 ft. Hit: 4 (ld4 + 2) Piercing damage."
"Sting. Constitution Saving Throw: DC 12, one creature the pseudodragon can see with in 5 feet. Failure: 5 (2d4+ 2) Poison damage, and the target has the Poisoned
condition for l hour."

Quote from Saku87 >>

I understand problem with low DC, but when successful Sting does more damage, or did I understand something wrong?

Yes, "Sting" has a slightly higher average (5 v 4) and potential (8 v 6) damage.

Quote from Saku87 >>

"Sting. Constitution Saving Throw: DC 12, one creature the pseudodragon can see with in 5 feet. Failure: 5 (2d4+ 2) Poison damage, and the target has the Poisoned
condition for l hour."

??? Where did the "+2" come from? The stat block when I look at it only says "(2d4)".

Hmmm, that +2 is in my "D&D 5e - Players Handbook 2024", but maybe it is error that has corrected in later editions.

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

Quote from Saku87 >>

"Sting. Constitution Saving Throw: DC 12, one creature the pseudodragon can see with in 5 feet. Failure: 5 (2d4+ 2) Poison damage, and the target has the Poisoned
condition for l hour."

??? Where did the "+2" come from? The stat block when I look at it only says "(2d4)".

Some of the stat blocks in the 5.5e Player's Handbook got revised between its release and the release of the Monster Manual a few months later. In April of 2025, D&D Beyond updated the digital version of the Player's Handbook to use the stat blocks from the Monster Manual and I'd imagine that's what future printings of the Player's Handbook will use as well. It's described in the Errata here (though the individual changes aren't listed).

Quote from Saku87 >>

Ok, but if it is not attack and Find familiar spell says that "A familiar can’t attack, but it can take other actions as normal", does it mean that Pseudodragon can use Sting in it's own turn independently? In this case, why would any warlock substitute their attack to allow the Pseudodragon to use its Bite when Sting is free to use?

At higher levels, the Warlock's own attacks are going to be more effective than the familiar's. At the levels where Bite is an effective option, the Warlock uses their Attack action and the Familiar attacks as a Reaction. The attack occurs on the Warlock's turn and the familiar has their normal actions available on their turn.

With Investment of the Chain Master, you can now expend a Bonus Action to have the Pseudodragon use the Attack action. This allows it to attack twice with its Bite via Multiattack. However, since the Sting is now using your spell save DC, Sting is more effective unless something is immune to poison. I am not aware of anything immune to Bite's piercing damage.

Finally, when using the Bonus Action to have the Pseudodragon attack twice, because they are two attacks, the chances of at least one of them hitting increases, particularly if you can manage advantage on the attacks. The damage will always be low without help. If both bites hit, the damage will be superior to Sting on raw damage (2d4+4 versus 2d4), but the poisoned/unconscious condition is really strong.

Quote from Saku87>>

Is Pseudodragons Sting an attack action? In Sting there is no attack roll but saving throw, so I think it is not attack action, but magic action. I know this sounds silly because the name this action has, but I find it difficult to interpret the rules any other way. [...]

 At the risk of being redundant, the Actions in a monster's stat block are usually melee or ranged attacks (see Attack Notation); effects that force a saving throw (see Saving Throw Effect Notation); or spells (see Spellcasting). 

So, in this case, the Sting Action is a Saving Throw Effect.

But I also replied because I wanted to share why this understanding about stat blocks is relevant, for example in the following cases:

- 2024 counterspell v 2025 monster manual stat blocks?
- Wildshape and Monk
- Grappling using multiattack in animal form D&D 2024 
- moon druid animal form grappling

Regarding the Action being magical, we have this in the SAC:

How do I tell if something in the game is magical?

Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.

And here are some related threads related to monsters and that question:

- Does the Freedom of Movement Spell negate a Lich's paralyzing touch?
- Crackling Wave (Arch-Hag) 
- Are attacks (melee/effects) from magically summoned creatures mitigated by monsters’ magic resistance? 
- MM25 - Monster Attack when Magic, Clarification 

I think this definition gets abused to the point of bad faith sometimes. I've had DMs claim that attacks that were obviously magical weren't because the description didn't explicitly contain the word "magical".

And it especially annoys me when the same people who will go out of their way to ban shenanigans that are based on RAW reading of the rules by reminding the party of the importance of RAI... suddenly become extremely pedantic when it comes to defining what is and what isn't affected by Antimagic Field and what your Ring of Free Action can protect you from, even if it's completely absurd.

The Lich is a perfect example. I'm sorry but EVERYTHING these guys do is magical. It's a Lich...

Certainly, you can use their descriptions to justify that decision:

- Liches, masters of magic and undeath
- Liches possess exceptional cunning and magical prowess

Quote from Natrel >>

I think this definition gets abused to the point of bad faith sometimes. I've had DMs claim that attacks that were obviously magical weren't because the description didn't explicitly contain the word "magical".

And it especially annoys me when the same people who will go out of their way to ban shenanigans that are based on RAW reading of the rules by reminding the party of the importance of RAI... suddenly become extremely pedantic when it comes to defining what is and what isn't affected by Antimagic Field and what your Ring of Free Action can protect you from, even if it's completely absurd.

The Lich is a perfect example. I'm sorry but EVERYTHING these guys do is magical. It's a Lich...

Legendary Resistance and Spirit Jar are not magical traits and function normally within an Antimagic Field.

Multiattack, Eldritch Burst, and Paralyzing Touch are not magical actions and function normally within an Antimagic Field. Everything under Spellcasting is magical and would be suppressed.

Protective Magic is a magical reaction and would be suppressed within an Antimagic Field.

Deathly Teleport and Disrupt Life are not magical legendary actions and function normally within an Antimagic Field. Frightening Gaze is magical and would be suppressed.

It doesn't matter that the Lich is created via magic. That is not sufficient to make their abilities magical. Not all of their traits and actions independently qualify for the RAW definition of a magical effect and therefore function normally within an Antimagic Field.

A Pseudodragon's Sting also meets none of the requirements for a magical effect and therefore is not one, functions normally within an Antimagic Field, and does not use a Magic action to activate. It also does not meet the requirements for an Attack.

Just one thing regarding Deathly Teleport:

Teleportation

Teleportation is a special kind of magical transportation. If you teleport, you disappear and reappear elsewhere instantly, without moving through the intervening space. This transportation doesn’t expend movement unless a rule tells you otherwise, and teleportation never provokes Opportunity Attacks.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Multiattack, Eldritch Burst, and Paralyzing Touch are not magical actions and function normally within an Antimagic Field. Everything under Spellcasting is magical and would be suppressed.

 
Eldritch Burst deals Force damage. Force damage is defined in the PHB as "Pure magical energy". Anything that deals Force damage is magical by definition.

As for Paralyzing Touch... This is where I think the "you need to have the word Magical in it" goes too far. They invoke Cold damage from nowhere, and Paralyze without using any toxins. It's clearly not physical Cold, and it's clearly not a natural Paralysis. This should be considered magical by default. If not RAW, at the very least RAI.

Another clear indication that both of these are magical is the fact that they have +12 on attack and +5 on damage. +5 is its Intelligence modifier, and +12 corresponds to that INT mod + its PB of 7. The Lich is using its spell casting ability for both of these attacks and their damage, not its Dexterity (which is only +3) or its Strength (which is 0). And I'll posit that any attack that uses your spell casting ability is magical.