"As if it had cast the spell" treats it as the caster. So the range of touch is measured from it.
False. By that logic, another caster within counterspell range of the familiar, but not the first caster, could counter the touch spell. This isn't the case. Therefore, the range is measured from the familiar "as if it had cast the spell."
Yes? "X is false, it is actually X."
I think the only mistake I made was not using enough words to counter arguments you hadn't made yet.
But, no. The familiar is not actually the caster, it is only treated as if it was to measure range. So your whole "by that logic," argumentum ad absurdum doesn't track.
But whatever, we are saying the same thing, and it doesn't even apply to the OP's question, why are you arguing with me?
If we were agreeing, why were you trying to counter my arguments?
My argument was that the range of touch, which definitely doesn't include misty step, is not measured from the caster. It is measured from the familiar. In the post immediately following mine, you wrote:
We were not arguing the same thing until you changed/clarified your position.
P.S. Maybe it's just weakness of communicating by text, but you seem to consider argumentum ad absurdum a logical fallacy. Am I reading into your post or is that true?
If we were agreeing, why were you trying to counter my arguments?
My argument was that the range of touch, which definitely doesn't include misty step, is not measured from the caster. It is measured from the familiar. In the post immediately following mine, you wrote:
We were not arguing the same thing until you changed/clarified your position.
P.S. Maybe it's just weakness of communicating by text, but you seem to consider argumentum ad absurdum a logical fallacy. Am I reading into your post or is that true?
I was countering arguments because you were arguing with me.
My first post was responding to the topic and agreeing to the other responses to the topic. If I were arguing a topic not related to the original post, I would have quoted it (as I've been). Then your reply to me was "how does that apply to this? [Quote from find familiar]" I answered. You disagreed, made an absurd straw man statement, then rephrased the same thing I said. I pointed out that we were saying the same thing. Now we are here.
And yeah, argument to absurdity. Taking an example to an extreme. Like taking "a familiar is treated as if it cast a spell that was cast through it by someone else" to the extreme of "the familiar can be counterspelled." That is an absurd extreme, so I stand by calling out the fallacy.
If we were agreeing, why were you trying to counter my arguments?
My argument was that the range of touch, which definitely doesn't include misty step, is not measured from the caster. It is measured from the familiar. In the post immediately following mine, you wrote:
We were not arguing the same thing until you changed/clarified your position.
P.S. Maybe it's just weakness of communicating by text, but you seem to consider argumentum ad absurdum a logical fallacy. Am I reading into your post or is that true?
I was countering arguments because you were arguing with me.
My first post was responding to the topic and agreeing to the other responses to the topic. If I were arguing a topic not related to the original post, I would have quoted it (as I've been). Then your reply to me was "how does that apply to this? [Quote from find familiar]" I answered. You disagreed, made an absurd straw man statement, then rephrased the same thing I said. I pointed out that we were saying the same thing. Now we are here.
And yeah, argument to absurdity. Taking an example to an extreme. Like taking "a familiar is treated as if it cast a spell that was cast through it by someone else" to the extreme of "the familiar can be counterspelled." That is an absurd extreme, so I stand by calling out the fallacy.
In the context of you replying to the OP and not to my post, I can understand your position. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Argumentum ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. The wikipedia article says, "this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate."
Argumentum ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. The wikipedia article says, "this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate."
Huh... Fair enough.
Well there was definitely some kind of fallacy in there. Don't know which. False equivalence maybe... There are a lot more of these than I would have guessed. And so nuanced.
After being swallowed whole in a recent game, it occurred to me that if I'd had a familiar, I could have used Misty Step to travel outside of the stomach of the Froghemoth in whose gastric juices I was being digested. It seems that this thread seems to support the use of this spell for using Misty Step in such a way, if the location being viewed with the eyes of the familiar is within 30' of the caster.
Guys, by RAW yes u can teleport up to 130 feet with this combo. The range for misty step is self, and it only requires a place that U CAN SEE, and this place that u can see need to be within 30 feet of that. So what it means is, i cannot teleport to a place 35 feet away, only 30.
And this is okay, this is not the only way to use this combo. U can be a Order of scribes wizard, u could cast Arcane Eye to gain that information and teleport, etc.
The key is the spell dont care about how u see or perceive things. IF somehow u can see something, or perceive by any means, throug abilities or spell/spell effects, u can use this particularly combo. And why it works ? it's simple: Misty step is bonus action, RANGE AND TARGET SELF ( this dont require anything from the familiar ), Seeing through familiar's eye is a action.
It's not. The point needs to be within 30ft of you, and you need to be able to see it.
Your familiar doesn't "count" as you for any purposes other than determining the origin point for touch spells you cast. Misty Step isn't a touch spell, so your familiar doesn't "count" as you for Misty Step. Thus, the point you choose doesn't need to be within 30ft of your familiar -- it needs to be within 30ft of YOU.
You need to be able to see it, which you can do with your own eyes or those of your familiar, because you can see through the eyes of your familiar. If you can find another way to see, you can use that instead. But it won't change the fact that the point needs to be within 30ft of you.
Okay yes, you can’t do this with a familiar. I would like to present an alternative option: Scribes Wizard. Due to the wording of Manifest Mind, you could do this as long as the Manifestation is within 300ft of you, over double the range OP was looking for.
Okay yes, you can’t do this with a familiar. I would like to present an alternative option: Scribes Wizard. Due to the wording of Manifest Mind, you could do this as long as the Manifestation is within 300ft of you, over double the range OP was looking for.
I would still say no. (edit: though after thinking about it, I could see it go either way, I'd still rule no :) ).
Here are the relevant rules:
Manifest Mind: "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
So yes, a scribes wizard can cast any spell from the location of the spectral mind as if they were in that space.
However, Misty Step says:
"Briefly surrounded by silvery mist, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see."
The spell does NOT say an unoccupied space within 30 feet of a location you can see or where you cast the spell from - it says "YOU teleport up to 30 feet". The character is not their spectral mind even though they are casting spells "as if" they were located somewhere else.
Although they can cast the spell as if they were located at the location of the spectral mind, from the wording of Misty Step they are limited to a location within 30 feet of the caster since it explicitly states "YOU teleport up to 30 feet".
I really don't see any way around the wording of Misty Step limiting the teleport to within 30 feet of the actual location of the spellcaster since even when they can effectively cast spells from another location via familiar or Manifest Mind they can only move 30' from the actual location of the spellcaster.
P.S. However, as always, ask your DM :). I could see a DM ruling that "as if you were in the spectral mind's space instead of your own" to actually consider the spellcaster to BE in in the spectral mind's space instead of somewhere else and then limit the 30' to be within 30' of the spectral mind. So you could get different interpretations depending on how a specific DM decides to read that aspect of the description.
IU read through all the posts and until David42 said it, everyone ignored the exact wording. YOU teleport, meaning wherever your physical body is, it can move up to 30' anywhere you can see. HOW you see this isn't relevant, so as suggested from inside a monster, if your familiar is still outside it, you can teleport to the monster's back if you wanted. Familiar can see it, it's within 30' of you, in the monster's tummy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And no one disagrees with you. That just isn't the question anyone asked.
If we were agreeing, why were you trying to counter my arguments?
My argument was that the range of touch, which definitely doesn't include misty step, is not measured from the caster. It is measured from the familiar. In the post immediately following mine, you wrote:
We were not arguing the same thing until you changed/clarified your position.
P.S. Maybe it's just weakness of communicating by text, but you seem to consider argumentum ad absurdum a logical fallacy. Am I reading into your post or is that true?
You could see through a familiar and misty step to the spot but it would be you casting it and you would need to still be in the range of the spell.
I was countering arguments because you were arguing with me.
My first post was responding to the topic and agreeing to the other responses to the topic. If I were arguing a topic not related to the original post, I would have quoted it (as I've been). Then your reply to me was "how does that apply to this? [Quote from find familiar]" I answered. You disagreed, made an absurd straw man statement, then rephrased the same thing I said. I pointed out that we were saying the same thing. Now we are here.
And yeah, argument to absurdity. Taking an example to an extreme. Like taking "a familiar is treated as if it cast a spell that was cast through it by someone else" to the extreme of "the familiar can be counterspelled." That is an absurd extreme, so I stand by calling out the fallacy.
In the context of you replying to the OP and not to my post, I can understand your position. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Argumentum ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. The wikipedia article says, "this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate."
Huh... Fair enough.
Well there was definitely some kind of fallacy in there. Don't know which. False equivalence maybe... There are a lot more of these than I would have guessed. And so nuanced.
After being swallowed whole in a recent game, it occurred to me that if I'd had a familiar, I could have used Misty Step to travel outside of the stomach of the Froghemoth in whose gastric juices I was being digested. It seems that this thread seems to support the use of this spell for using Misty Step in such a way, if the location being viewed with the eyes of the familiar is within 30' of the caster.
Yeah, that would do it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Guys, by RAW yes u can teleport up to 130 feet with this combo. The range for misty step is self, and it only requires a place that U CAN SEE, and this place that u can see need to be within 30 feet of that. So what it means is, i cannot teleport to a place 35 feet away, only 30.
But, as https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/704489177388191745 Mrs. Crawford said, spells that requires line of sight dont care about how u get that vision, only cares if u can or cannot see. So u can, by RAW, teleport with this combo.
And this is okay, this is not the only way to use this combo. U can be a Order of scribes wizard, u could cast Arcane Eye to gain that information and teleport, etc.
The key is the spell dont care about how u see or perceive things. IF somehow u can see something, or perceive by any means, throug abilities or spell/spell effects, u can use this particularly combo. And why it works ? it's simple: Misty step is bonus action, RANGE AND TARGET SELF ( this dont require anything from the familiar ), Seeing through familiar's eye is a action.
Maybe idk ... it's really confusing dude :(
It's not. The point needs to be within 30ft of you, and you need to be able to see it.
Your familiar doesn't "count" as you for any purposes other than determining the origin point for touch spells you cast. Misty Step isn't a touch spell, so your familiar doesn't "count" as you for Misty Step. Thus, the point you choose doesn't need to be within 30ft of your familiar -- it needs to be within 30ft of YOU.
You need to be able to see it, which you can do with your own eyes or those of your familiar, because you can see through the eyes of your familiar. If you can find another way to see, you can use that instead. But it won't change the fact that the point needs to be within 30ft of you.
Okay yes, you can’t do this with a familiar. I would like to present an alternative option: Scribes Wizard. Due to the wording of Manifest Mind, you could do this as long as the Manifestation is within 300ft of you, over double the range OP was looking for.
I would still say no. (edit: though after thinking about it, I could see it go either way, I'd still rule no :) ).
Here are the relevant rules:
Manifest Mind: "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
So yes, a scribes wizard can cast any spell from the location of the spectral mind as if they were in that space.
However, Misty Step says:
"Briefly surrounded by silvery mist, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see."
The spell does NOT say an unoccupied space within 30 feet of a location you can see or where you cast the spell from - it says "YOU teleport up to 30 feet". The character is not their spectral mind even though they are casting spells "as if" they were located somewhere else.
Although they can cast the spell as if they were located at the location of the spectral mind, from the wording of Misty Step they are limited to a location within 30 feet of the caster since it explicitly states "YOU teleport up to 30 feet".
I really don't see any way around the wording of Misty Step limiting the teleport to within 30 feet of the actual location of the spellcaster since even when they can effectively cast spells from another location via familiar or Manifest Mind they can only move 30' from the actual location of the spellcaster.
P.S. However, as always, ask your DM :). I could see a DM ruling that "as if you were in the spectral mind's space instead of your own" to actually consider the spellcaster to BE in in the spectral mind's space instead of somewhere else and then limit the 30' to be within 30' of the spectral mind. So you could get different interpretations depending on how a specific DM decides to read that aspect of the description.
IU read through all the posts and until David42 said it, everyone ignored the exact wording. YOU teleport, meaning wherever your physical body is, it can move up to 30' anywhere you can see. HOW you see this isn't relevant, so as suggested from inside a monster, if your familiar is still outside it, you can teleport to the monster's back if you wanted. Familiar can see it, it's within 30' of you, in the monster's tummy.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.