One Thing to consider: Can't Attack is incorrect. Cannot take the attack action is correct. By RAW, they are entitled a Reaction, which can include an attack if you chose to do such and the requirements are met, or perhaps you are using them to deliver a spell. Just making sure there is clarity on the difference between they Cannot Attack and they Cannot use the Attack Action.
It is exactly correct to say that a familiar can't attack, because the spell says it can't.
Cannot take the attack action is correct.
Maybe. The end of the cited sentence above that I chopped off is "[...] but it can take other actions as normal." Since the first clause doesn't reference an action, the grammar violates the rules of the game, so as always, it's up to your DM to decide. But the difference is meaningless given the current set of familiars - you'd need a familiar capable of taking the attack action without attacking (just as some PC builds can accomplish) in order to make the question of whether a familiar can take the attack action relevant.
By RAW, they are entitled a Reaction, which can include an attack if you chose to do such and the requirements are met, or perhaps you are using them to deliver a spell.
Absolutely illegal and cheating. Familiars can't attack, which means they can't make OAs. Only special rules stating otherwise can override this.
Just making sure there is clarity on the difference between they Cannot Attack and they Cannot use the Attack Action.
I am currently playing a pact of the chain warlock and I took the investment of the chain master feat specifically for a faerie dragon breath. From experience, the effect of its breath weapon can be highly effective in shutting down an opponent. The spells are nice, but unless you have a ring of spell storing, they are used very little. The BA invisibility keeps them from being caught in the open most of the time. I use her sparingly as to not annoy my GM, but I know that is the only reaspon he has allowed me to keep the dragon.
If I were to tune a faerie dragon, I would:
Give a save for its euphoria breath at the end of the targets turn.
Invisibility would take an action to initiate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
One Thing to consider: Can't Attack is incorrect. Cannot take the attack action is correct. By RAW, they are entitled a Reaction, which can include an attack if you chose to do such and the requirements are met, or perhaps you are using them to deliver a spell. Just making sure there is clarity on the difference between they Cannot Attack and they Cannot use the Attack Action.
They "can't attack". If it was "can't take the Attack action" it would say exactly that.
They can't make Melee Attacks (Weapon or Spell), Ranged Attacks (Weapon or Spell), or use any feature that involves an attack roll per the 5e rules.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
"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."
A bold face lack of reading or lie; your statement above "They can't make Melee Attacks (Weapon or Spell), Ranged Attacks (Weapon or Spell), or use any feature that involves an attack roll per the 5e rules."
PHB Find Familiar Last paragraph "Finally, 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." Like Shocking Grasp (touch spell, requires an attack roll, uses a reaction ATTACK from them with your Bonus.)
This is poor editing IMO. Context - "Can't attack, but can take other actions as normal" In conversation, including reading and writing we look at the structure. This statement is referring to Actions, specifically Attack (action), think of me saying they cannot Dodge. I do not need to say the Dodge action, as I am speaking about Actions. It states, take all other actions as normal, which would include a reaction. "The opportunity attack, described in " Making an Attack ", is the most common type of Reaction". If it can make reactions, it can make an Opportunity Attack, which is clearly different than an "Attack" define by several factors, 1. proceeding word Opportunity , 2. triggered by a Reaction not Attack ACTION, 3. has restrictions on things one can commonly add to an Attack. (College of Swords Blade Flourish "You take the Attack Action", Smite Spells - Branding Smite "The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, ..") notice two RAW "attack" abilities that both say attack in them, yet each (edit)- could be -(edit) entirely different attacks. (edit)- A reaction(opportunity) attack or an attack action. -(edit)
Clear signs to consider to establish intent. What reactions do Familiars have to use? Look at the familiar Templates, did someone screw up every one of these to include creature/familiar specific attacks on familiar specific templates, or is it likely that, they can only attack with a Reaction, and not take the Attack action. If Reaction Attacks (Opportunity Attacks) had been intended to be included why did the Pact of the Chain Warlock familiar progression not include they can now make Opportunity Attacks? (1. Pact of the Chain Boon "...and when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction. [no trigger for reaction needed, they can just do it because you forgo one of your attacks, as if they could use their reaction before and you have just now used an attack to provide them an easy means to attack.], 2. Investment of the Chain Master "- As a bonus action, you can command the familiar to take the Attack action.".
In no area does it say they cannot make Opportunity Attacks, nor is there any area where it states they gain Opportunity Attacks, simple because "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." (including reactions)
I do not blame you, I blame poor editing (as mentioned above) and too many people at WoTC, who to say it simple, are not clued into Clarity and/or Consistency as we can see in many inconsistences with rulings and why so many debates come up like this. There are many areas where Attack action is called and an Opportunity Attack are called out; however, when Attack is called out it is clearly defined as a reaction or action. Going back to the statement in the spell as it speaks to ACTIONS, they cannot attack, but can take all other actions. This includes reactions, and the Opportunity Attack as it is NOT an action, but a reaction which once more is defined under ".....but it can take other actions as normal."
Playing 5e we have to make Wisdom saves vs Confusion every time someone opens a 5e book. :-)
"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."
A bold face lack of reading or lie; your statement above "They can't make Melee Attacks (Weapon or Spell), Ranged Attacks (Weapon or Spell), or use any feature that involves an attack roll per the 5e rules."
PHB Find Familiar Last paragraph "Finally, 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." Like Shocking Grasp (touch spell, requires an attack roll, uses a reaction ATTACK from them with your Bonus.)
This is poor editing IMO. Context - "Can't attack, but can take other actions as normal" In conversation, including reading and writing we look at the structure. This statement is referring to Actions, specifically Attack (action), think of me saying they cannot Dodge. I do not need to say the Dodge action, as I am speaking about Actions. It states, take all other actions as normal, which would include a reaction. "The opportunity attack, described in " Making an Attack ", is the most common type of Reaction". If it can make reactions, it can make an Opportunity Attack, which is clearly different than an "Attack" define by several factors, 1. proceeding word Opportunity , 2. triggered by a Reaction not Attack ACTION, 3. has restrictions on things one can commonly add to an Attack. (College of Swords Blade Flourish "You take the Attack Action", Smite Spells - Branding Smite "The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, ..") notice two RAW "attack" abilities that both say attack in them, yet each (edit)- could be -(edit) entirely different attacks. (edit)- A reaction(opportunity) attack or an attack action. -(edit)
Clear signs to consider to establish intent. What reactions do Familiars have to use? Look at the familiar Templates, did someone screw up every one of these to include creature/familiar specific attacks on familiar specific templates, or is it likely that, they can only attack with a Reaction, and not take the Attack action. If Reaction Attacks (Opportunity Attacks) had been intended to be included why did the Pact of the Chain Warlock familiar progression not include they can now make Opportunity Attacks? (1. Pact of the Chain Boon "...and when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction. [no trigger for reaction needed, they can just do it because you forgo one of your attacks, as if they could use their reaction before and you have just now used an attack to provide them an easy means to attack.], 2. Investment of the Chain Master "- As a bonus action, you can command the familiar to take the Attack action.".
In no area does it say they cannot make Opportunity Attacks, nor is there any area where it states they gain Opportunity Attacks, simple because "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." (including reactions)
I do not blame you, I blame poor editing (as mentioned above) and too many people at WoTC, who to say it simple, are not clued into Clarity and/or Consistency as we can see in many inconsistences with rulings and why so many debates come up like this. There are many areas where Attack action is called and an Opportunity Attack are called out; however, when Attack is called out it is clearly defined as a reaction or action. Going back to the statement in the spell as it speaks to ACTIONS, they cannot attack, but can take all other actions. This includes reactions, and the Opportunity Attack as it is NOT an action, but a reaction which once more is defined under ".....but it can take other actions as normal."
Playing 5e we have to make Wisdom saves vs Confusion every time someone opens a 5e book. :-)
The familiar delivering a spell attack is still YOU casting the spell and making the attack roll, not the familiar. The familiar is only using its reaction to deliver the spell, it isn't attacking.
They cannot make Opportunity Attacks because they cannot attack. OAs involve an attack roll, attack rolls are defined by the rules as attacks by the line "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
Pact of the Chain specifically provides a means for a familiar to attack. It's a specific rule that overrides a general rule as per the 5e "specific beats general" rule structure.
The general rule is "familiars (from find familar) cannot attack" ergo they cannot make use of any feature that involves them making an attack roll.
Ok, I see the issue here is understanding grammar and English, not the rule. As simple as it can be put we have to look at the sentence that was said. Please bear with me and I will try to make it as clear as it can be for you and anyone else that reads this with confusion.
The Sentence: "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." Let's break this down to the base parts in question. Can't attack, but can take other actions.
Other is an adjective that is offering a distinction between actions (other actions)
Attack is a VERB, not an noun as you are apparently reading it to be (actions is the object of the sentence and the noun, where Attack is being used to describe the type of action)
Actions are the things being done/taken in the sentence making them the focus (the sentence speaks of actions to take).
example:He has to leave, the other comedians can stay. In this example I can tell you that He is a comedian based on the writing and structure. I do not assume that everyone who is identified by a male pronoun of He has to leave, nor do I assume that other comedians have to leave, nor that they are male, just He (him to be grammatically correct).
We are fortunate to know what other actions are available by understanding the topic of the conversation and that they can be taken normally. Can't attack, but can take other actions as normal.
the other actions being refried to by an implied understanding of the noun actions in the sentence are (per PHB Actions in Combat): Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search and Use an Action. You also have Movement, Reaction, Free Actions (speaking), and Interactions.
The use of the word Normal at the end of the extended sentence now shows how it can take the other actions, as normal. Meaning without hindrance or restriction, which we know includes Reactions by understanding the topic of the conversation Actions. If reactions (edit)- were -(edit) to be treated differently it would have been referred to as another exception, not an inclusion with other actions.
So in conclusion the statement/sentence "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal"Means: A familiar can't take the attack action, but other actions can be taken normally, reactions included.
So in conclusion the statement/sentence "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal"Means: A familiar can't take the attack action, but other actions can be taken normally, reactions included.
So in conclusion the statement/sentence "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal"Means: A familiar can't take the attack action, but other actions can be taken normally, reactions included.
This is a serious misunderstanding of the rules.
This is a serious misunderstanding of grammar. Best wishes
So in conclusion the statement/sentence "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal"Means: A familiar can't take the attack action, but other actions can be taken normally, reactions included.
This is a serious misunderstanding of the rules.
This is a serious misunderstanding of grammar. Best wishes
Come on now. The rules says attack. There are countless examples of attacks in the game that aren't the attack action, and this sentence is meant to and does exclude all of them. If you think that's wrong then do better explaining why the rules writers didn't use the syntax involved with actions that they use throughout the rest of the game.
The sentence does not as I put it before and can see in the sentence structure it speaks of ACTIONS. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal. Can't and can what?action. (edit)- If it wasn't about Actions why include them? Doesn't a Familiar can't attack sum it all up without Actions needed in the sentence if it was simply Can't Attack? Why include the rest, unless they are meant to define an implied Action. -(eidt)
"That one is bad, the other books are good" talking about Books.
"Can do squats, cannot do other exercises" talking about Exercises
"Can't attack, but can take other actions." Talking about ACTIONS.
If you can't get it after this, then I am sorry. Maybe others will. Above examples are as clear as day, and I am done trying to provide a grasp over grammar, not even a rule thing, just simple grammar.
Edit: Please also note the fore mentioned details in my earlier post about EVERY Familiar Template in the Published 5e books has an Attack listed with it. So taking grammar lessons and all these 5e Published Familiar Templates into Account, do you really think they have absolutely no ability to make an Attack or just no Attack Action? Let's use our heads for something else and make that Intelligence or Wisdom save players choice.
Again, the rules refer to the "attack action" when they mean the action and attack when they mean attack. Your English argument either doesn't understand the game's syntax or ignores it.
And you even misunderstand the familiar template (I find multiple misunderstandings aren't uncommon). The monster manual says that it just adds a block of text to the existing stat block.
Some pseudodragons are willing to serve spellcasters as a familiar. Such pseudodragons have the following trait.
And by the way, familiars need to be able to attack, because tome locks have the ability to make their familiars use that feature as an exception to the rule in the spell's text.
And you even misunderstand the familiar template (I find multiple misunderstandings aren't uncommon). The monster manual says that it just adds a block of text to the existing stat block.
Some pseudodragons are willing to serve spellcasters as a familiar. Such pseudodragons have the following trait.
And by the way, familiars need to be able to attack, because tome locks have the ability to make their familiars use that feature as an exception to the rule in the spell's text.
I know about the Lock example, I mentioned it in detail above, also some of the attack rules and such didn't come out until later publications post PHB, in addition it really is geared towards an Imp, Quasit and Pseudodragon that have valued attacks, not a +0 attack roll that does 1 damage. Nothing beats someone stepping into a conversation and not being up to speed.
Plus the Pseudodragon and optional familiars are NOT part of the Find Familiar spell, so your quote (that is missing details) is of no value.
Anyhow, I am done, you enjoy your game, however you play it.
Edit: Please also note the fore mentioned details in my earlier post about EVERY Familiar Template in the Published 5e books has an Attack listed with it. So taking grammar lessons and all these 5e Published Familiar Templates into Account, do you really think they have absolutely no ability to make an Attack or just no Attack Action? Let's use our heads for something else and make that Intelligence or Wisdom save players choice.
Wait a second, Each familiar still has an attack listed... in its actions. So those are attack actions. Your argument is that "they can't use the attack action, see they all still have attack actions listed." Am I understanding correctly?
Edit: my quote in #33 is complete except for the actual text of the trait that's added that makes no reference to attacking. It is for the psuedodragon because on this website I cannot find familiar variants of any of the normal familiars or a general familiar template.
One Thing to consider: Can't Attack is incorrect. Cannot take the attack action is correct. By RAW, they are entitled a Reaction, which can include an attack if you chose to do such and the requirements are met, or perhaps you are using them to deliver a spell. Just making sure there is clarity on the difference between they Cannot Attack and they Cannot use the Attack Action.
A familiar can't attack, [...]
It is exactly correct to say that a familiar can't attack, because the spell says it can't.
Maybe. The end of the cited sentence above that I chopped off is "[...] but it can take other actions as normal." Since the first clause doesn't reference an action, the grammar violates the rules of the game, so as always, it's up to your DM to decide. But the difference is meaningless given the current set of familiars - you'd need a familiar capable of taking the attack action without attacking (just as some PC builds can accomplish) in order to make the question of whether a familiar can take the attack action relevant.
Absolutely illegal and cheating. Familiars can't attack, which means they can't make OAs. Only special rules stating otherwise can override this.
See citation above.
I am currently playing a pact of the chain warlock and I took the investment of the chain master feat specifically for a faerie dragon breath. From experience, the effect of its breath weapon can be highly effective in shutting down an opponent. The spells are nice, but unless you have a ring of spell storing, they are used very little. The BA invisibility keeps them from being caught in the open most of the time. I use her sparingly as to not annoy my GM, but I know that is the only reaspon he has allowed me to keep the dragon.
If I were to tune a faerie dragon, I would:
Give a save for its euphoria breath at the end of the targets turn.
Invisibility would take an action to initiate.
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
They "can't attack". If it was "can't take the Attack action" it would say exactly that.
They can't make Melee Attacks (Weapon or Spell), Ranged Attacks (Weapon or Spell), or use any feature that involves an attack roll per the 5e rules.
"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."
A bold face lack of reading or lie; your statement above "They can't make Melee Attacks (Weapon or Spell), Ranged Attacks (Weapon or Spell), or use any feature that involves an attack roll per the 5e rules."
PHB Find Familiar Last paragraph "Finally, 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." Like Shocking Grasp (touch spell, requires an attack roll, uses a reaction ATTACK from them with your Bonus.)
This is poor editing IMO. Context - "Can't attack, but can take other actions as normal" In conversation, including reading and writing we look at the structure. This statement is referring to Actions, specifically Attack (action), think of me saying they cannot Dodge. I do not need to say the Dodge action, as I am speaking about Actions. It states, take all other actions as normal, which would include a reaction. "The opportunity attack, described in " Making an Attack ", is the most common type of Reaction". If it can make reactions, it can make an Opportunity Attack, which is clearly different than an "Attack" define by several factors, 1. proceeding word Opportunity , 2. triggered by a Reaction not Attack ACTION, 3. has restrictions on things one can commonly add to an Attack. (College of Swords Blade Flourish "You take the Attack Action", Smite Spells - Branding Smite "The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, ..") notice two RAW "attack" abilities that both say attack in them, yet each (edit)- could be -(edit) entirely different attacks. (edit)- A reaction(opportunity) attack or an attack action. -(edit)
Clear signs to consider to establish intent. What reactions do Familiars have to use? Look at the familiar Templates, did someone screw up every one of these to include creature/familiar specific attacks on familiar specific templates, or is it likely that, they can only attack with a Reaction, and not take the Attack action. If Reaction Attacks (Opportunity Attacks) had been intended to be included why did the Pact of the Chain Warlock familiar progression not include they can now make Opportunity Attacks? (1. Pact of the Chain Boon "...and when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction. [no trigger for reaction needed, they can just do it because you forgo one of your attacks, as if they could use their reaction before and you have just now used an attack to provide them an easy means to attack.], 2. Investment of the Chain Master "- As a bonus action, you can command the familiar to take the Attack action.".
In no area does it say they cannot make Opportunity Attacks, nor is there any area where it states they gain Opportunity Attacks, simple because "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal." (including reactions)
I do not blame you, I blame poor editing (as mentioned above) and too many people at WoTC, who to say it simple, are not clued into Clarity and/or Consistency as we can see in many inconsistences with rulings and why so many debates come up like this. There are many areas where Attack action is called and an Opportunity Attack are called out; however, when Attack is called out it is clearly defined as a reaction or action. Going back to the statement in the spell as it speaks to ACTIONS, they cannot attack, but can take all other actions. This includes reactions, and the Opportunity Attack as it is NOT an action, but a reaction which once more is defined under ".....but it can take other actions as normal."
Playing 5e we have to make Wisdom saves vs Confusion every time someone opens a 5e book. :-)
The familiar delivering a spell attack is still YOU casting the spell and making the attack roll, not the familiar. The familiar is only using its reaction to deliver the spell, it isn't attacking.
They cannot make Opportunity Attacks because they cannot attack. OAs involve an attack roll, attack rolls are defined by the rules as attacks by the line "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
Pact of the Chain specifically provides a means for a familiar to attack. It's a specific rule that overrides a general rule as per the 5e "specific beats general" rule structure.
The general rule is "familiars (from find familar) cannot attack" ergo they cannot make use of any feature that involves them making an attack roll.
Ok, I see the issue here is understanding grammar and English, not the rule. As simple as it can be put we have to look at the sentence that was said. Please bear with me and I will try to make it as clear as it can be for you and anyone else that reads this with confusion.
example: He has to leave, the other comedians can stay. In this example I can tell you that He is a comedian based on the writing and structure. I do not assume that everyone who is identified by a male pronoun of He has to leave, nor do I assume that other comedians have to leave, nor that they are male, just He (him to be grammatically correct).
So in conclusion the statement/sentence "A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal" Means: A familiar can't take the attack action, but other actions can be taken normally, reactions included.
This is a serious misunderstanding of the rules.
This is a serious misunderstanding of grammar. Best wishes
Come on now. The rules says attack. There are countless examples of attacks in the game that aren't the attack action, and this sentence is meant to and does exclude all of them. If you think that's wrong then do better explaining why the rules writers didn't use the syntax involved with actions that they use throughout the rest of the game.
The sentence does not as I put it before and can see in the sentence structure it speaks of ACTIONS. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal. Can't and can what? action. (edit)- If it wasn't about Actions why include them? Doesn't a Familiar can't attack sum it all up without Actions needed in the sentence if it was simply Can't Attack? Why include the rest, unless they are meant to define an implied Action. -(eidt)
"That one is bad, the other books are good" talking about Books.
"Can do squats, cannot do other exercises" talking about Exercises
"Can't attack, but can take other actions." Talking about ACTIONS.
If you can't get it after this, then I am sorry. Maybe others will. Above examples are as clear as day, and I am done trying to provide a grasp over grammar, not even a rule thing, just simple grammar.
Edit: Please also note the fore mentioned details in my earlier post about EVERY Familiar Template in the Published 5e books has an Attack listed with it. So taking grammar lessons and all these 5e Published Familiar Templates into Account, do you really think they have absolutely no ability to make an Attack or just no Attack Action? Let's use our heads for something else and make that Intelligence or Wisdom save players choice.
Again, the rules refer to the "attack action" when they mean the action and attack when they mean attack. Your English argument either doesn't understand the game's syntax or ignores it.
And you even misunderstand the familiar template (I find multiple misunderstandings aren't uncommon). The monster manual says that it just adds a block of text to the existing stat block.
And by the way, familiars need to be able to attack, because tome locks have the ability to make their familiars use that feature as an exception to the rule in the spell's text.
I know about the Lock example, I mentioned it in detail above, also some of the attack rules and such didn't come out until later publications post PHB, in addition it really is geared towards an Imp, Quasit and Pseudodragon that have valued attacks, not a +0 attack roll that does 1 damage. Nothing beats someone stepping into a conversation and not being up to speed.
Plus the Pseudodragon and optional familiars are NOT part of the Find Familiar spell, so your quote (that is missing details) is of no value.
Anyhow, I am done, you enjoy your game, however you play it.
Wait a second, Each familiar still has an attack listed... in its actions. So those are attack actions. Your argument is that "they can't use the attack action, see they all still have attack actions listed." Am I understanding correctly?
Edit: my quote in #33 is complete except for the actual text of the trait that's added that makes no reference to attacking. It is for the psuedodragon because on this website I cannot find familiar variants of any of the normal familiars or a general familiar template.
This is also why I won't ever play in adventurers league. Stupid restrictions by rules lawyer number crunchers is unfun, screw adventurers league.
i agree, especially if its an archfey patron warlock that picked pact of the chain, it feels right for that to be allowed
In each one of my campaigns with my Dragonborns I want to get a pet wyrmling of their draconian ancestry. how would I go about doing that
Talk to your DM since there is no other way except maybe the Drakewarden Ranger that does get a drake companion at level 3.
Other than that, there is no way to get a pet wyrmling - it is up to the DM only.
Thanks
Thanks DAVID that really helps if I can get him to do that then I’ll be almost only doing thunder and lightning damage