I'm a little confused about who is on what side here. But the "climbing onto larger enemies" is no less core than feats, multiclassing, or using a grid. It's a published rule within the core rulebooks, and very different from a houserule.
Heh, I had nearly forgotten that feats are also an 'optional rule.' Not sure there are many DM's who do not allow them.
I actually play in a campaign where one of the other players excludes feats when he DMs.
I'm a little confused about who is on what side here. But the "climbing onto larger enemies" is no less core than feats, multiclassing, or using a grid. It's a published rule within the core rulebooks, and very different from a houserule.
Nobody is saying they are house rules. Just that they are optional.
I look at optional rules this way: they are a great answer to a DM's problems, but useless to a player's.
If a DM came on here asking us if there is a way for one of his player's familiar to climb a monster, we could point them to the optional rule for it and their question would be answered.
If a player came here asking if there's a way for their familiar to climb a monster, the answer is "no." We can tell them about the optional rule and suggest they bring it up with their DM, but if the DM doesn't want to use it then we are stuck suggesting options from the core rules, and for this particular question there aren't any.
If a player came here asking if there's a way for their familiar to climb a monster, the answer is "no." We can tell them about the optional rule and suggest they bring it up with their DM, but if the DM doesn't want to use it then we are stuck suggesting options from the core rules, and for this particular question there aren't any.
I disagree. In my opinion, the answer should be “There are optional rules in the DMG for it, but you’re better off asking your DM since it’s entirety up to them.”
Nah, that wouldn't be an appropriate answer for a player, the answer is the same either way: cite to the DMG section which provides a rule for how to handle it. Either way they'll have to bring it up with their DM and work it out, no reason to gatekeep.
Personally, I rank the options in XGtE or other non-core publications a little differently from the "options" in the PHB and DMG.
The "core" rules are the PHB, DMG, MM, and Basic Rules. Within those core rules, there are those rules which are assumed always to be in play. These rules are rules, unless the DM says otherwise with a houserule, or if there is a superceding rule or rule option which provides a specific exception.
1.Within the "core" are also those rule options which introduce some additional complexity, which a DM may or may not want to bother with in their game. Technically, these aren't "rules" if the DM doesn't allow them into the game, but by and large, it's assumed on these forums that all core rule options like Feats, multi-classing, etc. are in play. While most accurately called "core rule options," it's safe enough to call these "core rules" when answering questions about "is there a rule for....?"
XGtE and other later source books provide new or setting-specific non-core rule options for some complex or poorly defined topics in the core books. They're still official "rules," not homebrew, but they're not assumed to be in play, and may even contradict or replace core rules or options, so will need definite DM buy-in. Not safe to assume that these are in play for general questions.
SAC and SA tweets are not rules at all, but rather rulings, helpful guidance on how a DM might choose to houserule or interpret other published rules. To the extent that #1 or #2 are ambiguous, SAC or SA tweets might provide some guidance for a DM, but shouldn't be treated as sufficient to contradict the RAW text unless the DM intentionally wants to depart from RAW.
Ya know, I take it back... I just read the Mark combat option and I would not assume that that is generally in play, I've never even noticed it before!
Call 'em rules, call 'em rule options, whatever...either way, it's part of the "core" package, and worth discussing.
If a player came here asking if there's a way for their familiar to climb a monster, the answer is "no." We can tell them about the optional rule and suggest they bring it up with their DM, but if the DM doesn't want to use it then we are stuck suggesting options from the core rules, and for this particular question there aren't any.
I disagree. In my opinion, the answer should be “There are optional rules in the DMG for it, but you’re better off asking your DM since it’s entirety up to them.”
If you remove the "I disagree" from the start of your post, you sound like you're agreeing with - almost quoting - me. I suppose I said "we can" instead of "we should," so yes, you're correct.
Would you react the same way if the answer to their question was a regular PHB feat?
Edit: And back on topic, assuming the DM ok'd this optional rule and given it does need a bit of creativity on the part of the player and given their are counters (if the enemy has somewhere convenient to slam their back into), would it be so unbelievable that a familiar could help without being killed quickly?
My answer would be the same: there is an optional rule that would allow you to that your DM may or may not choose to use.
I never argued it being unbelievable if that optional rule was used; it wasn't brought up until well after I had said it isn't possible to climb on a creature, and I don't operate under the assumption that all optional rules are in play. I don't think any of us do. In fact, I prefer to assume the opposite, because if a player is asking something then optional rules may not be in play for them. Good to suggest them, yes, but not to assume they're available and leave it at that.
I don't use this optional rule as a premeditated thing, but if a player asked for this in my game, I would probably allow the familiar to attempt to climb the creature and have some extra protection from it, at least if the enemy had armor that the rat could try to squeeze under. But I also don't discuss rules based on how I would play it in my game; I discuss them based on what the rules are. All I ever argued was that unless that rule was used, then there's no way to do it. I said this as early as my post #40: "If your DM wants to use it, then there are certainly possibilities."
Well, I also argued that you don't drag creatures onto you when you grapple them. Which, unless you can provide a rule stating otherwise, I think we can agree is fact.
Well discussing rules, we only have our individual interpretations to draw on. If we are limited to purely objective statements, all we could do is quite the books at each other verbatim. So why would a familiar even necessarily have to get under someone's armor to help and of they were in a hard to reach spot (small of the back, nape of the neck, etc), wouldn't the enemy have a difficult to impossible time dislodging them?
Up to DM discretion; the optional rule in the DMG even says as much: " The larger creature’s ability to attack the smaller creature depends on the smaller creature’s location, and is left to your discretion." I think that it would certainly be feasible for it to impose disadvantage on attacks against it, or even that a creature would have to punch it or use their weapon's hilt as an improvised weapon, rather than strike it with your blade or something. I'm not - and haven't been - arguing against this.
As for grappling, off topic, but I wasn't saying anything about dragging creatures on to you, but rather you moving into the same space as them, which is rather needed unless the only form of grappling is grabbing a wrist or ankle.
Dragging a creature onto you or you going into their space, doesn't matter either way; it doesn't happen. You both stay in your own spaces. Just because you're in adjacent 5-foot spaces doesn't - by the narrative - mean there's five feet of space between you. It's just how the mechanics of the game work. If you need to, imagine you're both smooshed up to the edges of your "cubes."
There is no rule stating that grappling a creature makes you occupy the same space as them or vice versa. There's nothing about grappling that could even potentially overrule how Moving Around Other Creatures works. If you know of any such rules, please provide them. Otherwise, it is what it is.
So now that we've gotten that out of our system... let me back up to earlier stuff I take issue with.
Grappling is something a familiar can not do, because it is a type of attack that is made as part of the Attack Action. There doesn't appear to be a RAW way to grapple without taking the Attack action.
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
...Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands. In combat, it rolls its own initiative and acts on its own turn. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.
If one creature wants to jump onto another creature, it can do so by grappling. A Small or Medium creature has little chance of making a successful grapple against a Huge or Gargantuan creature, however, unless magic has granted the grappler supernatural might.
As an alternative, a suitably large opponent can be treated as terrain for the purpose of jumping onto its back or clinging to a limb. After making any ability checks necessary to get into position and onto the larger creature, the smaller creature uses its action to make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the target’s Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If it wins the contest, the smaller creature successfully moves into the target creature’s space and clings to its body. While in the target’s space, the smaller creature moves with the target and has advantage on attack rolls against it....
So it seems like the DMG says that there are two ways that you can climb onto a larger creature: (1) with a normal grapple check (character's Athletics, vs. Target's Athletics or Acrobatics), and (2) with this new action (character's Acrobatics or Athletics, vs. Target's Acrobatics). Is this intent that this "climb onto" action is a new way to "Grapple", subject to the same limitations we already know about Grapple (is an attack, can be made as part of an attack action by replacing one regular attack), or is this a wholly new action which is not linked to the attack action?
I'm inclined to think that this is a wholly new action, not a new type of Grapple, but the section is short enough and laid out odd-enough that I could see a reasonable DM ruling otherwise. Thoughts?
That assumes the familiar is helping each round and nevertheless assumes they are doing so from within reach rather than, say, dropping rocks, or shrieking at the orc, or any number of other ways they could help and still stay out of reach. Or if they are small enough, the classic of running up and down the creature forcing it to risk hitting itself to harm the little creature plaguing them.
Mmmm, except the Help action can only be done within 5 feet of the creature you're trying to grant advantage against. So, no. Only an owl familiar really has the option to use the Help action and stay out of reach without provoking opportunity attacks.
So if a mouse familar is dancing around the creature's back, the creature can easily hit it? Getting under the clothes, etc? One can be touching and be nigh untouchable.
Woah... what? What rule says I can't attack a small or even tiny creature? Sorry, you can decide what you want in your games, but I don't play with that houserule. Familiars aren't untouchable "help machines" that can't be hit.
This sounds like the perspective of a player that wants to keep his Familiar safe, which is fine. But you'd better discuss with your DM rationally before getting disappointed if your expectations aren't met.
... nobody (I think?) is saying a mouse or other Familiar can’t take the Help action, of course they can. Nobody (I think?) is saying a Helping Familiar can’t be attacked if the enemy chooses to? What... what is this argument over, whether it’s a good idea???
That assumes the familiar is helping each round and nevertheless assumes they are doing so from within reach rather than, say, dropping rocks, or shrieking at the orc, or any number of other ways they could help and still stay out of reach. Or if they are small enough, the classic of running up and down the creature forcing it to risk hitting itself to harm the little creature plaguing them.
Mmmm, except the Help action can only be done within 5 feet of the creature you're trying to grant advantage against. So, no. Only an owl familiar really has the option to use the Help action and stay out of reach without provoking opportunity attacks.
So if a mouse familar is dancing around the creature's back, the creature can easily hit it? Getting under the clothes, etc? One can be touching and be nigh untouchable.
Woah... what? What rule says I can't attack a small or even tiny creature? Sorry, you can decide what you want in your games, but I don't play with that houserule. Familiars aren't untouchable "help machines" that can't be hit.
This sounds like the perspective of a player that wants to keep his Familiar safe, which is fine. But you'd better discuss with your DM rationally before getting disappointed if your expectations aren't met.
You are answering purely from a play balance perspective, namely 'That would be too effective, cannot allow it' rather than from a 'makes a better story' perspective. Such a tactic would not always be available. Not everything faced will be important enough for such a tactic to matter. Of foes important enough to matter, not everything faced will have a back easily 'danced around on.' Not everything faced important enough to matter and with a relatively climbable back will be fighting alone (an ally of the enemy could deal with it) or have a thin enough skin to notice (if the familiar literally has no way to irritate the foes skin, it would be harder or impossible for it to help) and the enemy may well be stronger than the mouse is dexterous and/or more skilled (there are options for dislodging, which would not harm the familiar but would mean it would have to end up in greater peril again). And all this requires a player who is actually thinking about such tactics and not merely saying 'my familiar helps me.'
It would not be 'risk free,' merely not as easily countered as to be painted as automatically countered (which seemed to be the attitude earlier in this thread). And if you really do not like the concept of familiars helping, why not rule that does not work, rather than saying 'It works, but no matter what precautions you take to make it less risky for your familiar, your familiar would be dead in a round or two so don't do it!'
And I obviously cannot speak for all players, but in my personal experience, 'It makes sense but does not work because there is no rule that allows it' is something that is more likely to turn players off than excite them. It is a fun tactic. There are counters. Why so vehemently opposed?
familiar are magic being wich are killable but you can just call it back so it isn't true death also why would a mouse be able to go into someone else armor? whoever weir their armor that badly deserve to die
but I don't get why this conversation even went that far this forum thread is about "flock of familiar" not the simple "find familiar" spell
If your BBEG did this, then they should have consumed spell slots and depending on what they are, probably taken the very same exhaustion because the spell only lasts an hour, to keep it up all night means your BBEG needs to be spell casting all night long too. Familiar can also stealth, at that point, unless the creatures have a specific reason to suspect they only have their passive perception to try and detect the familiar. If a familiar has something like pass without trace or guidance, their stealth can get high enough that very few things would ever detect them. It's unlikely that a troll is going to try and chase down every rat in their cave.
In battle, attacking a familiar takes an action or an attack, very few enemies would have magic missile normally and creatures should be played as they are rather than war gamed, a big brutish Orc is extremely unlikely to attack an owl while the large hulking goliath barbarian at front of the party is trying to half them with a great axe. And in regards to owl specifically, owl can't be opportunity attacked when it leaves an enemies range which mean when using melee weapons those creatures will only be able to use a readied action to attack. Really it needs a more intelligent or wise type of creature to realize the importance of taking down familiar.
The BBEG was a Warlock. So it resulted in more Familiars in the Flock, more attacks per day, and multiple Dream Spells as well... in addition to getting enough rest.
And I’ve never kowtowed to the idea on how people tell me how Monsters “should” play. A Familiar offering help every single round? You bet that Orc is going to smack it. You bet that Roper is going to eat it. You bet that everything in the game is going to swat a Familiar. Any DM that doesn’t has to accept that he’s empowering a 1st level spell quite significantly.
An Orc is certainly wise enough to attack the thing that’s flying in it’s face constantly.
The BBEG might be a warlock, but the spell still only lasts an hour, so they need to stay awake to keep it up to distract people. Using Dream spells as you say, would work if the party fails it's Wisdom saves.
If you don't play monsters as unique monsters and they all do the most tactical/strategic thing, you're basically just wargaming at that point. An Orc is not going to prioritize a distracting 12 inch tall Owl over an 8 foot high Goliath that is literally swinging down on them with a great axe. And to do that attack on an Owl, it needs to ready an action because you can't opportunity attack an owl for leaving your range, so the Owl swoops down every turn 10 foot, does help and then flies up 10 foot again. Or it does it from behind where the Orc itself needs to invoke an opportunity attack from the Goliath to chase it. Then when the orc readies it's action the party will see it did "nothing" on it's turn and they won't run the Owl in, so the readied action is wasted anyways. Now perhaps an Orc archer might prioritize the owl with an arrow, but that is an attack it can't use on the party and the owl may just be flying behind cover every round. Like getting behind the party, if it's behind a party member it is basically behind total cover. Seeing an archer not attack again is a sign to leave the owl in safety and that lack of attack maybe more helpful then a single help action.
... nobody (I think?) is saying a mouse or other Familiar can’t take the Help action, of course they can. Nobody (I think?) is saying a Helping Familiar can’t be attacked if the enemy chooses to? What... what is this argument over, whether it’s a good idea???
The BBEG might be a warlock, but the spell still only lasts an hour, so they need to stay awake to keep it up to distract people. Using Dream spells as you say, would work if the party fails it's Wisdom saves.
If you don't play monsters as unique monsters and they all do the most tactical/strategic thing, you're basically just wargaming at that point. An Orc is not going to prioritize a distracting 12 inch tall Owl over an 8 foot high Goliath that is literally swinging down on them with a great axe. And to do that attack on an Owl, it needs to ready an action because you can't opportunity attack an owl for leaving your range, so the Owl swoops down every turn 10 foot, does help and then flies up 10 foot again. Or it does it from behind where the Orc itself needs to invoke an opportunity attack from the Goliath to chase it. Then when the orc readies it's action the party will see it did "nothing" on it's turn and they won't run the Owl in, so the readied action is wasted anyways. Now perhaps an Orc archer might prioritize the owl with an arrow, but that is an attack it can't use on the party and the owl may just be flying behind cover every round. Like getting behind the party, if it's behind a party member it is basically behind total cover. Seeing an archer not attack again is a sign to leave the owl in safety and that lack of attack maybe more helpful then a single help action.
So... they stay awake. And that's why he used his Flock of Familiars to scout on the party until he knew they were sleeping - then, using Dream to disrupt it (targeting the especially vulnerable). The Warlock can sleep when the party least expects it. I'm really not sure what your contention is maybe?
"Basically you're just wargaming" - Complete assumption. My point was - if you're applying some kind of "wisdom" check to just doing something strategic, then you're not understanding my point. If you make every decision of the baddies based on a die roll or "this guy isn't smart enough to attack!", then you're pushing wargaming even more than me - because you're reducing even base decisions into a dice roll or stat. An Orc has a wisdom of 11 - higher than most of your PCs that dump wisdom. If you want to argue with me about "an Orc wouldn't be strategic when fighting for its life and realize that the spider using the help action is allowing the rogue to get sneak attack damage every single round because he's so dumb"... I don't know what to tell ya.
Your scenarios are ridiculous - you're dictating "An Orc wouldn't..." and "an Orc would"... are you speaking from a PC perspective or a DM perspective? Because, if you're a PC with that expectation you're likely to be disappointed in many campaigns with various DMs. If you're a DM, go for it - I just wouldn't want to play in a world where sentient creatures have such "base instincts" and zero strategic play.
And to top it off... you're even metagaming enemy "Ready" actions so you can avoid more issues with your Familiar getting into trouble. Imagine if every time a PC "readied" an action to attack and your DM was like "Uh... the Orc doesn't come through the door because he notices your PC didn't attack last round and thinks you might be readying an action to attack him when he comes in"...
In conclusion - I kill Familiars in my game. And I don't do it all the time, either. I do it based on how dangerous the familiar is and how insightful the target may be, and the opportunity as it presents itself. I don't use stats, I don't use blanket statements like "All Xs would not notice an Owl in its face", I don't metagame my player decisions - I play each character as an individual with its own awareness.
Here's how I decide whether an idea is silly in my games - I apply a completely ridiculous counter-scenario:
Would it make sense that an Orc army just hired a bunch of Booyagh Goblin spellcasters to summon 100s of Familiars to help them get advantage in their attacks, and would the PCs care that every Orc is getting advantage? Or would they Fireball and Magic Missile and Smack the crap out of every familiar they get a chance to, to even the odds?
So... they stay awake. And that's why he used his Flock of Familiars to scout on the party until he knew they were sleeping - then, using Dream to disrupt it (targeting the especially vulnerable). The Warlock can sleep when the party least expects it. I'm really not sure what your contention is maybe?
Right, but you were talking about originally the fact that you were using flock of familiars to keep everybody awake, I never disputed the dream part. To keep flock of familiars actively keeping people awake. As for the "warlock can sleep when the party least expects it". You'd think the party would kind of notice how the flock of random familiars is no longer harrassing them and if they do have dispel would use that same time to sleep. But then this is a statement about players rather than DM at that point...
"Basically you're just wargaming" - Complete assumption. My point was - if you're applying some kind of "wisdom" check to just doing something strategic, then you're not understanding my point. If you make every decision of the baddies based on a die roll or "this guy isn't smart enough to attack!", then you're pushing wargaming even more than me - because you're reducing even base decisions into a dice roll or stat. An Orc has a wisdom of 11 - higher than most of your PCs that dump wisdom. If you want to argue with me about "an Orc wouldn't be strategic when fighting for its life and realize that the spider using the help action is allowing the rogue to get sneak attack damage every single round because he's so dumb"... I don't know what to tell ya.
You have completely missed the point, the point was that creatures generally act in certain ways and to play them as they are. For example a Purple Worm isn't a tanky creature, it's an ambush predator, it works best played as an ambush predator. An Orc might have a wisdom of an 11 but still an int of 7, still I am referring to more how they are meant to be rather than by a simple stat block. What you said was you'd target the familiar first/second round, in that you Magic Missile Attack or AoE it first or second round of those "Shenanigans". That isn't what every creature in every battle would do.
I swear I read this stuff sometimes and wonder why your DMs are so easy on you. The only super-reliable form of help that doesn’t get smacked in my games is the AT class feature Versatile Trickster and Mastermind Rogue class feature Master of Tactics. The rest get Magic Missiled, attacked, AoE’d in the first or second round of those shenanigans.
Your scenarios are ridiculous - you're dictating "An Orc wouldn't..." and "an Orc would"... are you speaking from a PC perspective or a DM perspective? Because, if you're a PC with that expectation you're likely to be disappointed in many campaigns with various DMs. If you're a DM, go for it - I just wouldn't want to play in a world where sentient creatures have such "base instincts" and zero strategic play.
I am talking from a more lore perspective of what an orc is and how they act, however I also wouldn't want to play in one of your worlds where all sentient creatures have the insight of Alexandra the great or Julius Ceasar. Different creatures should act in different ways, a group of orc scouts aren't going to be as good at execution at battle as the clan war chief with a shaman or wise elder with them.
And to top it off... you're even metagaming enemy "Ready" actions so you can avoid more issues with your Familiar getting into trouble. Imagine if every time a PC "readied" an action to attack and your DM was like "Uh... the Orc doesn't come through the door because he notices your PC didn't attack last round and thinks you might be readying an action to attack him when he comes in"...
You can call it metagaming, but I am simply stating what would go down here and it's fair metagaming here in my opinion since the whole ready action itself in the first place would have been metagaming, you as the DM made the decision to ready the action not based on threat but because you understand the mechanics of the help action, and I repeat, an orc using ready to target an incoming owl instead of hitting the guy infront of him that last round cleaved his arm off, is metagaming. Also it should be obvious at this point the orc is not targeting the guy in front of him, in that respect it is less so metagamey than the ready action from the orc.
Of course by this level, the rogue going for a creature they have advantage against over one they do not have advantage against is also metagaming, since the rogue is making a decision based on something that their character in universe doesn't know. In these cases the metagaming aspects are fair but that isn't to say there isn't in game ways to explain them. For example the rogue notices the one being distracted by an owl is distracted. The owl being targeted by a ready action sees the orc targeting it. Well those make sense, this one doesn't tho... The orc gets frustrated and holds it's weapon readying an attack in the direction of the owl, which leaves no guard to the rest of the party actively surrounding it and poking holes into various parts of it's body. Now an orc war chief ordering his underlings to shot the annoying owl out of the sky, so an archer or two take aim at it, I could see.
In conclusion - I kill Familiars in my game. And I don't do it all the time, either. I do it based on how dangerous the familiar is and how insightful the target may be, and the opportunity as it presents itself. I don't use stats, I don't use blanket statements like "All Xs would not notice an Owl in its face", I don't metagame my player decisions - I play each character as an individual with its own awareness.
Here's how I decide whether an idea is silly in my games - I apply a completely ridiculous counter-scenario:
Would it make sense that an Orc army just hired a bunch of Booyagh Goblin spellcasters to summon 100s of Familiars to help them get advantage in their attacks, and would the PCs care that every Orc is getting advantage? Or would they Fireball and Magic Missile and Smack the crap out of every familiar they get a chance to, to even the odds?
This isn't how you originally said, and I never said the orcs wouldn't notice an owl in their face, I said they'd probably more notice the Goliath in process of trying to turn them into a cross-section dummy of an orc.
Your "counter-scenario" is just stupid. 100s of familiars, the players can not conjure literally 100s of familiars. And even if there were 100s of familiars, is it even worth targeting them, it'd take so many rounds to get them all, just kill the people ordering them about. Of course this is very metagaming but I think in such a crazy scenario the players would have to metagame.
So what would a player do in this scenario? Fighting an orc who has a owl behind him where the player is a level 2 strength based melee fighter using a greataxe with a back-up javelin every round the owl flies at the player, does the help action and then flies back, the player would try to attack the owl with ready or chase it and get an opportunity attack, or he could use that javelin but then after he threw it, he'd be face to face with no weapon in hand. Alternatively he could just attack the orc... I'd go with attack the orc, even with the help action, the orc is the biggest danger here and the next attack against you would still have advantage even if you did manage to strike down the owl (it'd just stop future help actions).
And by RAW, Flock of Familiars lets you summon 3 familiars as if you were casting the Find Familiar spell. So you could technically summon Imps, Quasits etc. If you are a pact of the chain Warlock.
You temporarily summon three familiars – spirits that take animal forms of your choice. Each familiar uses the same rules and options for a familiar conjured by the Find Familiar spell. All the familiars conjured by this spell must be the same type of creature (celestials, fey, or fiends; your choice).
Flock of Familiars is a completely different spell. It's not casting Find Familiar 3 times. Pact of the Chain clearly and specifically refers to the Find Familiar spell, not just any spell that summons familiars. It's a fine line, but it's pretty cut and dry.
Lol pact of the chain says you get to choose from extra forms, so the pact of the chain warlock's find familiar spell is altered. Flock of familiars says that it uses the same rules...which are now altered by the pact of the chain. Either way, they all have less than 10hp. The entire hallmark of their class is still wrapped up in a squishy creature that can be taken care of with any attack, or poofed if the warlock gets attacked and fail their concentration. Why cant they have fun?
RAW says that flock uses the same options as find familiars, as a pact of the chain warlock your options are expanded, why wouldn't they be able to use those expanded options?
It uses the same options as find familiar, it doesn't say it uses the same options of find familiar including modifications from other options. Pact of the chain only modifies find familiar, hence the modifications don't apply to flock of familiars
Flock-Each familiar uses the same rules and options for a familiar conjured by the find familiar spell.
Pact of the chain Find Familiar-When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.
For a pact of the chain warlock they can summon one of those extra options, they would carry over unless you as DM decide to not allow it.
I would disagree that the options don't carry over. Flock of Familiars exclusively refers to find familiar and Pact of the Chain does the same (exclusively refers to find familiar). Flock and Pact of the Chain don't 'cross pollinate' in terms of their functionality from how they are written.
Think of it this way, Flock of Familiars = Find Familiar + X, while Pact of the Chain = Find Familiar + Y. They're both independent of each other and I'd say nothing would carry over unless you as DM decided to allow it.
I actually play in a campaign where one of the other players excludes feats when he DMs.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Nobody is saying they are house rules. Just that they are optional.
I look at optional rules this way: they are a great answer to a DM's problems, but useless to a player's.
If a DM came on here asking us if there is a way for one of his player's familiar to climb a monster, we could point them to the optional rule for it and their question would be answered.
If a player came here asking if there's a way for their familiar to climb a monster, the answer is "no." We can tell them about the optional rule and suggest they bring it up with their DM, but if the DM doesn't want to use it then we are stuck suggesting options from the core rules, and for this particular question there aren't any.
I disagree. In my opinion, the answer should be “There are optional rules in the DMG for it, but you’re better off asking your DM since it’s entirety up to them.”
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Nah, that wouldn't be an appropriate answer for a player, the answer is the same either way: cite to the DMG section which provides a rule for how to handle it. Either way they'll have to bring it up with their DM and work it out, no reason to gatekeep.
Personally, I rank the options in XGtE or other non-core publications a little differently from the "options" in the PHB and DMG.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ya know, I take it back... I just read the Mark combat option and I would not assume that that is generally in play, I've never even noticed it before!
Call 'em rules, call 'em rule options, whatever...either way, it's part of the "core" package, and worth discussing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you remove the "I disagree" from the start of your post, you sound like you're agreeing with - almost quoting - me. I suppose I said "we can" instead of "we should," so yes, you're correct.
My answer would be the same: there is an optional rule that would allow you to that your DM may or may not choose to use.
I never argued it being unbelievable if that optional rule was used; it wasn't brought up until well after I had said it isn't possible to climb on a creature, and I don't operate under the assumption that all optional rules are in play. I don't think any of us do. In fact, I prefer to assume the opposite, because if a player is asking something then optional rules may not be in play for them. Good to suggest them, yes, but not to assume they're available and leave it at that.
I don't use this optional rule as a premeditated thing, but if a player asked for this in my game, I would probably allow the familiar to attempt to climb the creature and have some extra protection from it, at least if the enemy had armor that the rat could try to squeeze under. But I also don't discuss rules based on how I would play it in my game; I discuss them based on what the rules are. All I ever argued was that unless that rule was used, then there's no way to do it. I said this as early as my post #40: "If your DM wants to use it, then there are certainly possibilities."
Well, I also argued that you don't drag creatures onto you when you grapple them. Which, unless you can provide a rule stating otherwise, I think we can agree is fact.
Up to DM discretion; the optional rule in the DMG even says as much: " The larger creature’s ability to attack the smaller creature depends on the smaller creature’s location, and is left to your discretion." I think that it would certainly be feasible for it to impose disadvantage on attacks against it, or even that a creature would have to punch it or use their weapon's hilt as an improvised weapon, rather than strike it with your blade or something. I'm not - and haven't been - arguing against this.
Dragging a creature onto you or you going into their space, doesn't matter either way; it doesn't happen. You both stay in your own spaces. Just because you're in adjacent 5-foot spaces doesn't - by the narrative - mean there's five feet of space between you. It's just how the mechanics of the game work. If you need to, imagine you're both smooshed up to the edges of your "cubes."
There is no rule stating that grappling a creature makes you occupy the same space as them or vice versa. There's nothing about grappling that could even potentially overrule how Moving Around Other Creatures works. If you know of any such rules, please provide them. Otherwise, it is what it is.
So now that we've gotten that out of our system... let me back up to earlier stuff I take issue with.
Normally the question of "What is an attack" is answered by saying "an attack is where you make an attack roll," but in this specific circumstance a Grapple is specifically an "attack" despite not using an attack roll, and also can only be made using the Attack Action. Familiars can't do that, no matter what meaning you give "can't attack."
Now, is climbing onto a larger creature a Grapple? Both yes and also maybe no!
So it seems like the DMG says that there are two ways that you can climb onto a larger creature: (1) with a normal grapple check (character's Athletics, vs. Target's Athletics or Acrobatics), and (2) with this new action (character's Acrobatics or Athletics, vs. Target's Acrobatics). Is this intent that this "climb onto" action is a new way to "Grapple", subject to the same limitations we already know about Grapple (is an attack, can be made as part of an attack action by replacing one regular attack), or is this a wholly new action which is not linked to the attack action?
I'm inclined to think that this is a wholly new action, not a new type of Grapple, but the section is short enough and laid out odd-enough that I could see a reasonable DM ruling otherwise. Thoughts?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Woah... what? What rule says I can't attack a small or even tiny creature? Sorry, you can decide what you want in your games, but I don't play with that houserule. Familiars aren't untouchable "help machines" that can't be hit.
This sounds like the perspective of a player that wants to keep his Familiar safe, which is fine. But you'd better discuss with your DM rationally before getting disappointed if your expectations aren't met.
... nobody (I think?) is saying a mouse or other Familiar can’t take the Help action, of course they can. Nobody (I think?) is saying a Helping Familiar can’t be attacked if the enemy chooses to? What... what is this argument over, whether it’s a good idea???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
familiar are magic being wich are killable but you can just call it back so it isn't true death also why would a mouse be able to go into someone else armor? whoever weir their armor that badly deserve to die
but I don't get why this conversation even went that far this forum thread is about "flock of familiar" not the simple "find familiar" spell
The BBEG might be a warlock, but the spell still only lasts an hour, so they need to stay awake to keep it up to distract people. Using Dream spells as you say, would work if the party fails it's Wisdom saves.
If you don't play monsters as unique monsters and they all do the most tactical/strategic thing, you're basically just wargaming at that point. An Orc is not going to prioritize a distracting 12 inch tall Owl over an 8 foot high Goliath that is literally swinging down on them with a great axe. And to do that attack on an Owl, it needs to ready an action because you can't opportunity attack an owl for leaving your range, so the Owl swoops down every turn 10 foot, does help and then flies up 10 foot again. Or it does it from behind where the Orc itself needs to invoke an opportunity attack from the Goliath to chase it. Then when the orc readies it's action the party will see it did "nothing" on it's turn and they won't run the Owl in, so the readied action is wasted anyways. Now perhaps an Orc archer might prioritize the owl with an arrow, but that is an attack it can't use on the party and the owl may just be flying behind cover every round. Like getting behind the party, if it's behind a party member it is basically behind total cover. Seeing an archer not attack again is a sign to leave the owl in safety and that lack of attack maybe more helpful then a single help action.
I... don’t know anymore. Hahaha
So... they stay awake. And that's why he used his Flock of Familiars to scout on the party until he knew they were sleeping - then, using Dream to disrupt it (targeting the especially vulnerable). The Warlock can sleep when the party least expects it. I'm really not sure what your contention is maybe?
"Basically you're just wargaming" - Complete assumption. My point was - if you're applying some kind of "wisdom" check to just doing something strategic, then you're not understanding my point. If you make every decision of the baddies based on a die roll or "this guy isn't smart enough to attack!", then you're pushing wargaming even more than me - because you're reducing even base decisions into a dice roll or stat. An Orc has a wisdom of 11 - higher than most of your PCs that dump wisdom. If you want to argue with me about "an Orc wouldn't be strategic when fighting for its life and realize that the spider using the help action is allowing the rogue to get sneak attack damage every single round because he's so dumb"... I don't know what to tell ya.
Your scenarios are ridiculous - you're dictating "An Orc wouldn't..." and "an Orc would"... are you speaking from a PC perspective or a DM perspective? Because, if you're a PC with that expectation you're likely to be disappointed in many campaigns with various DMs. If you're a DM, go for it - I just wouldn't want to play in a world where sentient creatures have such "base instincts" and zero strategic play.
And to top it off... you're even metagaming enemy "Ready" actions so you can avoid more issues with your Familiar getting into trouble. Imagine if every time a PC "readied" an action to attack and your DM was like "Uh... the Orc doesn't come through the door because he notices your PC didn't attack last round and thinks you might be readying an action to attack him when he comes in"...
In conclusion - I kill Familiars in my game. And I don't do it all the time, either. I do it based on how dangerous the familiar is and how insightful the target may be, and the opportunity as it presents itself. I don't use stats, I don't use blanket statements like "All Xs would not notice an Owl in its face", I don't metagame my player decisions - I play each character as an individual with its own awareness.
Here's how I decide whether an idea is silly in my games - I apply a completely ridiculous counter-scenario:
Would it make sense that an Orc army just hired a bunch of Booyagh Goblin spellcasters to summon 100s of Familiars to help them get advantage in their attacks, and would the PCs care that every Orc is getting advantage? Or would they Fireball and Magic Missile and Smack the crap out of every familiar they get a chance to, to even the odds?
Right, but you were talking about originally the fact that you were using flock of familiars to keep everybody awake, I never disputed the dream part. To keep flock of familiars actively keeping people awake. As for the "warlock can sleep when the party least expects it". You'd think the party would kind of notice how the flock of random familiars is no longer harrassing them and if they do have dispel would use that same time to sleep. But then this is a statement about players rather than DM at that point...
You have completely missed the point, the point was that creatures generally act in certain ways and to play them as they are. For example a Purple Worm isn't a tanky creature, it's an ambush predator, it works best played as an ambush predator. An Orc might have a wisdom of an 11 but still an int of 7, still I am referring to more how they are meant to be rather than by a simple stat block. What you said was you'd target the familiar first/second round, in that you Magic Missile Attack or AoE it first or second round of those "Shenanigans". That isn't what every creature in every battle would do.
I am talking from a more lore perspective of what an orc is and how they act, however I also wouldn't want to play in one of your worlds where all sentient creatures have the insight of Alexandra the great or Julius Ceasar. Different creatures should act in different ways, a group of orc scouts aren't going to be as good at execution at battle as the clan war chief with a shaman or wise elder with them.
You can call it metagaming, but I am simply stating what would go down here and it's fair metagaming here in my opinion since the whole ready action itself in the first place would have been metagaming, you as the DM made the decision to ready the action not based on threat but because you understand the mechanics of the help action, and I repeat, an orc using ready to target an incoming owl instead of hitting the guy infront of him that last round cleaved his arm off, is metagaming. Also it should be obvious at this point the orc is not targeting the guy in front of him, in that respect it is less so metagamey than the ready action from the orc.
Of course by this level, the rogue going for a creature they have advantage against over one they do not have advantage against is also metagaming, since the rogue is making a decision based on something that their character in universe doesn't know. In these cases the metagaming aspects are fair but that isn't to say there isn't in game ways to explain them. For example the rogue notices the one being distracted by an owl is distracted. The owl being targeted by a ready action sees the orc targeting it. Well those make sense, this one doesn't tho... The orc gets frustrated and holds it's weapon readying an attack in the direction of the owl, which leaves no guard to the rest of the party actively surrounding it and poking holes into various parts of it's body. Now an orc war chief ordering his underlings to shot the annoying owl out of the sky, so an archer or two take aim at it, I could see.
This isn't how you originally said, and I never said the orcs wouldn't notice an owl in their face, I said they'd probably more notice the Goliath in process of trying to turn them into a cross-section dummy of an orc.
Your "counter-scenario" is just stupid. 100s of familiars, the players can not conjure literally 100s of familiars. And even if there were 100s of familiars, is it even worth targeting them, it'd take so many rounds to get them all, just kill the people ordering them about. Of course this is very metagaming but I think in such a crazy scenario the players would have to metagame.
So what would a player do in this scenario? Fighting an orc who has a owl behind him where the player is a level 2 strength based melee fighter using a greataxe with a back-up javelin every round the owl flies at the player, does the help action and then flies back, the player would try to attack the owl with ready or chase it and get an opportunity attack, or he could use that javelin but then after he threw it, he'd be face to face with no weapon in hand. Alternatively he could just attack the orc... I'd go with attack the orc, even with the help action, the orc is the biggest danger here and the next attack against you would still have advantage even if you did manage to strike down the owl (it'd just stop future help actions).
Lol pact of the chain says you get to choose from extra forms, so the pact of the chain warlock's find familiar spell is altered. Flock of familiars says that it uses the same rules...which are now altered by the pact of the chain. Either way, they all have less than 10hp. The entire hallmark of their class is still wrapped up in a squishy creature that can be taken care of with any attack, or poofed if the warlock gets attacked and fail their concentration. Why cant they have fun?
RAW says that flock uses the same options as find familiars, as a pact of the chain warlock your options are expanded, why wouldn't they be able to use those expanded options?
It uses the same options as find familiar, it doesn't say it uses the same options of find familiar including modifications from other options. Pact of the chain only modifies find familiar, hence the modifications don't apply to flock of familiars
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Flock-Each familiar uses the same rules and options for a familiar conjured by the find familiar spell.
Pact of the chain Find Familiar-When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.
For a pact of the chain warlock they can summon one of those extra options, they would carry over unless you as DM decide to not allow it.
I would disagree that the options don't carry over. Flock of Familiars exclusively refers to find familiar and Pact of the Chain does the same (exclusively refers to find familiar). Flock and Pact of the Chain don't 'cross pollinate' in terms of their functionality from how they are written.
Think of it this way, Flock of Familiars = Find Familiar + X, while Pact of the Chain = Find Familiar + Y. They're both independent of each other and I'd say nothing would carry over unless you as DM decided to allow it.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules