Since you can use a familiar's senses and many spells have the limitation that you must see a target, can you cast these spells while looking through the familiar's eyes and being out of sight? For instance, I have an owl familiar, am looking through its eyes, and while it is in a position to see a foe on a ledge above me, I am not. Can I cast magic missile if the range from me to the target is valid?
You can only cast spells through a familiar with a range of touch. But you can use your familiar's sight to cast spells on yourself, such as misty step.
I'd allow it as long as the the magic missiles can reach the target with their range. No navigating 200 feet of building to hit a target on the other side of a wall, but can fly over a 20 feet tall exterior wall to hit.
That's the way I'd rule it anyway. A lot of rule interactions come down to DM interpretation.
Just keep in mind that it's an action to look through your familiar's eyes and an action to cast most spells. There are situations in which someone can have two actions on their turn, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I'd allow it as long as the the magic missiles can reach the target with their range. No navigating 200 feet of building to hit a target on the other side of a wall, but can fly over a 20 feet tall exterior wall to hit.
Spells can't target anything behind total cover unless the spell says otherwise. There needs to be a straight unblocked path between the caster and the target.
I'd allow it as long as the the magic missiles can reach the target with their range. No navigating 200 feet of building to hit a target on the other side of a wall, but can fly over a 20 feet tall exterior wall to hit.
Spells can't target anything behind total cover unless the spell says otherwise. There needs to be a straight unblocked path between the caster and the target.
This is true, but it would be more fun to allow a slight bend of the rules. And while my example may be too extreme, the OP sounds like the target would only be 3/4 cover if they just moved 5 or 10 feet, so a curved shot for a spell that can't miss sounds reasonable.
Thanks, all! Yeah, I think that the stipulation that it takes your action to use the familiar's senses (and you can only do so until the start of your next turn) is the key limiting factor. Even haste isn't going to help, as it doesn't apply to spells.
Thanks, all! Yeah, I think that the stipulation that it takes your action to use the familiar's senses (and you can only do so until the start of your next turn) is the key limiting factor. Even haste isn't going to help, as it doesn't apply to spells.
That's true, but there are quite a lot of bonus action spells, action surge is a thing, and metamagic can make any spell a bonus action. Not that helpful if you're a pure wizard though.
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
No, that's not a rule. Even being deafened doesn't restrict spellcasting.
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
No, that's not a rule. Even being deafened doesn't restrict spellcasting.
Perhaps, but I'm foregoing rules and using logic. If the spell silence (which deafens you), stops you from using the verbal component in spells, then LOGICALLY, anything else that deafens you causes the same effect. Unless you're like a well practiced spell caster, then I'd throw in a percentile die to see if you can accurately say the incantations for said spell. Which to clarify how they work are: "a very particular combination of sounds, with specific pitches and resonance that set the threads of magic in motion." <-- that's not an easy task.
Yeah, that's backwards. silence may deafen you, but it also silences you. That silencing bit is the part that is important to casting, and is called out in a separate sentence that is completely unrelated to the deafened condition.
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
No, that's not a rule. Even being deafened doesn't restrict spellcasting.
Perhaps, but I'm foregoing rules and using logic. If the spell silence (which deafens you), stops you from using the verbal component in spells, then LOGICALLY, anything else that deafens you causes the same effect. Unless you're like a well practiced spell caster, then I'd throw in a percentile die to see if you can accurately say the incantations for said spell. Which to clarify how they work are: "a very particular combination of sounds, with specific pitches and resonance that set the threads of magic in motion." <-- that's not an easy task.
Yeah, your logic is....well....illogical. Ever talk to someone who is wearing earplugs or was exposed to a loud noise and they can't hear temporarily and they talk louder than is necessary? (a common gag in movie and tv shows). They can still talk. Deafened does not mean they are unable to talk, just unable to hear. The silence spell also makes it so you can't make sounds like speaking, your lips move, but nothing comes out. That's what prevents casting spells with V component and not deafened.
Kind of reminds me of a coworker who liked to say in jest "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I didn't have my glasses on."
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
No, that's not a rule. Even being deafened doesn't restrict spellcasting.
Perhaps, but I'm foregoing rules and using logic. If the spell silence (which deafens you), stops you from using the verbal component in spells, then LOGICALLY, anything else that deafens you causes the same effect. Unless you're like a well practiced spell caster, then I'd throw in a percentile die to see if you can accurately say the incantations for said spell. Which to clarify how they work are: "a very particular combination of sounds, with specific pitches and resonance that set the threads of magic in motion." <-- that's not an easy task.
Yeah, your logic is....well....illogical. Ever talk to someone who is wearing earplugs or was exposed to a loud noise and they can't hear temporarily and they talk louder than is necessary? (a common gag in movie and tv shows). They can still talk. Deafened does not mean they are unable to talk, just unable to hear. The silence spell also makes it so you can't make sounds like speaking, your lips move, but nothing comes out. That's what prevents casting spells with V component and not deafened.
Kind of reminds me of a coworker who liked to say in jest "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I didn't have my glasses on."
If you want to get technical, then let's bring up Dr. Alfred Tomatis and the Tomatis Effect. To keep it short: "The voice can only reproduce what the ear can hear." - Dr. Tomatis; an Otolaryngologist. I never said being deafened keeps you from being able to talk, but just like singing - if you can't hear yourself sing, you're going off key no matter what you do. If you can't hear a note, you can't sing that note.
i.e. - Logic. THUS the percentile die!
But don't worry friends, the deafened condition rarely comes up in campaigns anyway except through Silence and Warding Wind. Rarely does anyone choose the deafness choice in blindness/deafness, so there's really no need to argue about who's logical and who's not. It's D&D. Other than core rules, every other one is merely suggestion. (And deafness is not a core rule).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since you can use a familiar's senses and many spells have the limitation that you must see a target, can you cast these spells while looking through the familiar's eyes and being out of sight? For instance, I have an owl familiar, am looking through its eyes, and while it is in a position to see a foe on a ledge above me, I am not. Can I cast magic missile if the range from me to the target is valid?
You can only cast spells through a familiar with a range of touch. But you can use your familiar's sight to cast spells on yourself, such as misty step.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd allow it as long as the the magic missiles can reach the target with their range. No navigating 200 feet of building to hit a target on the other side of a wall, but can fly over a 20 feet tall exterior wall to hit.
That's the way I'd rule it anyway. A lot of rule interactions come down to DM interpretation.
Just keep in mind that it's an action to look through your familiar's eyes and an action to cast most spells. There are situations in which someone can have two actions on their turn, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Spells can't target anything behind total cover unless the spell says otherwise. There needs to be a straight unblocked path between the caster and the target.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This is true, but it would be more fun to allow a slight bend of the rules. And while my example may be too extreme, the OP sounds like the target would only be 3/4 cover if they just moved 5 or 10 feet, so a curved shot for a spell that can't miss sounds reasonable.
Thanks, all! Yeah, I think that the stipulation that it takes your action to use the familiar's senses (and you can only do so until the start of your next turn) is the key limiting factor. Even haste isn't going to help, as it doesn't apply to spells.
DM is always right
That's true, but there are quite a lot of bonus action spells, action surge is a thing, and metamagic can make any spell a bonus action. Not that helpful if you're a pure wizard though.
I don't think the stipulation applies to anything other than being able to HEAR yourself cast the spell. If you can't hear yourself, you can't adequately say the verbal components of the spell. So make sure your owl is in range of your voice, while also being able to see the enemies, then you're totally fine.
Where's that rule?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, that's not a rule. Even being deafened doesn't restrict spellcasting.
Perhaps, but I'm foregoing rules and using logic. If the spell silence (which deafens you), stops you from using the verbal component in spells, then LOGICALLY, anything else that deafens you causes the same effect. Unless you're like a well practiced spell caster, then I'd throw in a percentile die to see if you can accurately say the incantations for said spell. Which to clarify how they work are: "a very particular combination of sounds, with specific pitches and resonance that set the threads of magic in motion." <-- that's not an easy task.
Yeah, that's backwards. silence may deafen you, but it also silences you. That silencing bit is the part that is important to casting, and is called out in a separate sentence that is completely unrelated to the deafened condition.
Oh well. Still adding in that percentile. For me, mixing logic and magic is more fun than obeying rules o 3o
If you say so. But I don't agree with your logic either. Deafened is the opposite of muted/silenced outside of the rules and in terms of logic.
Yeah. The logic:
It's kind of a red+blue=green logic.
I know Pathfinder had a similar rule. Earlier editions of D&D may have as well. But not 5e.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, your logic is....well....illogical. Ever talk to someone who is wearing earplugs or was exposed to a loud noise and they can't hear temporarily and they talk louder than is necessary? (a common gag in movie and tv shows). They can still talk. Deafened does not mean they are unable to talk, just unable to hear. The silence spell also makes it so you can't make sounds like speaking, your lips move, but nothing comes out. That's what prevents casting spells with V component and not deafened.
Kind of reminds me of a coworker who liked to say in jest "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I didn't have my glasses on."
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If you want to get technical, then let's bring up Dr. Alfred Tomatis and the Tomatis Effect. To keep it short: "The voice can only reproduce what the ear can hear." - Dr. Tomatis; an Otolaryngologist. I never said being deafened keeps you from being able to talk, but just like singing - if you can't hear yourself sing, you're going off key no matter what you do. If you can't hear a note, you can't sing that note.
i.e. - Logic. THUS the percentile die!
But don't worry friends, the deafened condition rarely comes up in campaigns anyway except through Silence and Warding Wind. Rarely does anyone choose the deafness choice in blindness/deafness, so there's really no need to argue about who's logical and who's not. It's D&D. Other than core rules, every other one is merely suggestion. (And deafness is not a core rule).