What would any of you think the ruling should be? RAW? Or allow an attack? Or am I wrong and RAW would allow an attack? I as a DM would allow it. I see the main reason for the Imp not having an attack of its own as simply game balance. Letting the warlock essentially have two attacks is too much. But without the warlock character there, it's not a balance issue. If I told the Imp to 'help Fred', I'd let the imp in the warlock's absence attack the monster trying to kill Fred.
That looks sensible to me. I think you're correct in that it's not strictly RAW, but I'd rule as you would, for the same reason.
In our campaign the setting is kinda Spelljammer/Cyberpunk 2077/WH40k/Dieselpunk with Magic.
And so one of our party member is a Clockwork Wizard (Kobold press Deep Magic:Clockwork) and one of its spells lets him imbue gears and clockwork mechanisms with up to lvl 3 spells, its one use only.
So i gave my Imp familliar a Beam hand cannon( a device that "casts" Lightning Bolt...), when he uses the "Use object" action, its like Rocket raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy...
Does the rule that says the familiar can't attack apply to reactions?
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.
Or you consider it an attack just like the attack action.
Now RAW and using semantics, Attack of Opportunity is a different action, then the Attack action, with similar effects.
Not sure about the RAW. The FF spell doesn't say the Familiar "can't take the attack action". It just says the familiar "can't attack". The problem is that officially there is the 'Attack action' and an 'Attack of Opportunity', as well as spells that give you 'attacks' without giving you the official Attack Action or an Attack of Opportunity. Booming Blade, for example--as part of casting the spell, meaning you are using the Cast a Spell action, you "make an attack". So there is a thing called just 'an attack'. It's what the Attack action and the Opportunity Attack rule lets you take. You don't "make an attack action", you take the Attack action, which lets you make an 'attack'.
So both the Attack action and an AoE let you do the same thing--make 'an attack'. And the FF spell specifically just forbids the familiar from 'attacking'. If AoE allows you to 'attack', and the familiar cannot 'attack', then no AoE :(
What is interesting, and I never really put this together, is that the familiar has its own initiative roll and can act on that initiative. But the warlock allows the familiar to attack on the warlock's initiative. The warlock is the one who takes the Attack action, and at that time gives the familiar one of his attacks.
So the familiar can attack on the warlock's initiative, and then still take any other action on its own initiative. Not the way we've been playing it, but it's fairly clear RAW, and makes the familiar a little more likely to be given your attack, I think. I don't know about anyone else, but we've been playing it that if the familiar attacks by the warlock allowing it, the warlock of course loses that attack, but we've been then considering that to be the familiar's action for the round. That's seemingly incorrect.
This is extremely DM dependent, but if Familiars can cast spells out of a Ring of Spell Storing, that is an absolutely huge advantage because it will let the Familiar Concentrate on a spell for the Wizard, freeing the Wizard up to use other spells.
A ring of spell storing requires attunement.
I would allow a Familiar to cast from a ring of spell storing if:
1) The master had attuned the ring, not the familiar
I remember from a previous question someone was asking about having a familiar/pet getting/using Attuned items. The short answer was that the use of the item is left up to the DM, but if the creature is part of a Spell or Feature of a character, then that character had to be the one Attuned and was affected by any passive effects of the item. I would figure that the Attuned player would also have to maintain Concentration.
Or you consider it an attack just like the attack action.
Now RAW and using semantics, Attack of Opportunity is a different action, then the Attack action, with similar effects.
Not sure about the RAW. The FF spell doesn't say the Familiar "can't take the attack action". It just says the familiar "can't attack". The problem is that officially there is the 'Attack action' and an 'Attack of Opportunity', as well as spells that give you 'attacks' without giving you the official Attack Action or an Attack of Opportunity. Booming Blade, for example--as part of casting the spell, meaning you are using the Cast a Spell action, you "make an attack". So there is a thing called just 'an attack'. It's what the Attack action and the Opportunity Attack rule lets you take. You don't "make an attack action", you take the Attack action, which lets you make an 'attack'.
So both the Attack action and an AoE let you do the same thing--make 'an attack'. And the FF spell specifically just forbids the familiar from 'attacking'. If AoE allows you to 'attack', and the familiar cannot 'attack', then no AoE :(
I agree with that when just looking at it saying the familiar can't attack, but it also says it can take other actions which, to me, implies it is talking about the attack action rather than attacks in general.
Or you consider it an attack just like the attack action.
Now RAW and using semantics, Attack of Opportunity is a different action, then the Attack action, with similar effects.
Not sure about the RAW. The FF spell doesn't say the Familiar "can't take the attack action". It just says the familiar "can't attack". The problem is that officially there is the 'Attack action' and an 'Attack of Opportunity', as well as spells that give you 'attacks' without giving you the official Attack Action or an Attack of Opportunity. Booming Blade, for example--as part of casting the spell, meaning you are using the Cast a Spell action, you "make an attack". So there is a thing called just 'an attack'. It's what the Attack action and the Opportunity Attack rule lets you take. You don't "make an attack action", you take the Attack action, which lets you make an 'attack'.
So both the Attack action and an AoE let you do the same thing--make 'an attack'. And the FF spell specifically just forbids the familiar from 'attacking'. If AoE allows you to 'attack', and the familiar cannot 'attack', then no AoE :(
I agree with that when just looking at it saying the familiar can't attack, but it also says it can take other actions which, to me, implies it is talking about the attack action rather than attacks in general.
I can take other actions. But 'making an attack' is not a combat action. There are two things in the game: the Action labeled 'attack', meaning the option you select when you do something in combat. And then there's 'making the attack' when you roll dice. For example, the Pact of the Chain description specifically says that you can allow your familiar to 'attack' when you "take the attack action". It doesn't say that your familiar can "take the attack action" when you choose, it says that the familiar can 'attack'. Similarly, the attack action itself says that it lets you 'make an attack'. It's very confusing, but here's a way to think about it, just by using slightly different words:
Attack Action (combat option you select) = Attack-A
Attack (the thing you roll dice for) = Attack-B
Attack-A =/= Attack-B
One of them lets you do the other one. A is simply a choice you make, B is something where dice are rolled.
In combat, you select Help, Cast a spell, etc. One option you select there is Attack-A. When you select (i.e. 'take') Attack-A, that lets you make an Attack-B. So far so good :)
The Pact of the Chain lets your familiar make an Attack-B if you select Attack-A as your option.
The Find Familiar Spell says that familiars cannot 'make attacks'. It doesn't say they can't take the attack option. That's language that's very consistent throughout. When they are talking about Attack-A, they use the verb 'take'. You take an action. But you make an Attack-B. The familiar is banned from making an Attack-B.
So anything that would let a familiar make an Attack-B won't work.
Except for the specific (specific beats general) pact of the chain ability, which lets a familiar make an Attack-B provided you take an Attack-A.
The language is very important. The thing the familiar is prevented from doing without a warlock's permission is the thing you make. That's the Attack-B, the thing you get to do if you take an Attack-A, or if you get an opportunity to AoE, or if you cast Green Flame Blade, etc.
If they'd just called these something different, the confusion would be alleviated. If they'd called the action you select Assault or something, and said "Taking the Assault action lets you make an attack", it would be clearer. But the 'take vs make' difference is pretty clear IMO. The spell doesn't reference the thing you take, it references the thing you make.
Not to derail, this is a related issue that just occurred to me and I'd like to get everyone's opinion.
Setup: I the warlock send my Imp familiar along with another party member, Fred, to go do some sort of adventure thing (details unimportant). I just tell my familiar "Go with Fred, and do whatever he tells you to do." (This part isn't my question, so I'd rather avoid 'would that work' questions--if you'd like, substitute any command you think would be necessary..."Go with Fred and help him scout, go with Fred and do what he says unless he says to hurt yourself, etc etc.) The point, Fred and my Imp familiar go off together, without me. They travel well away from me, more than 100 feet and outside my telepathy and 'see through its senses' range. So the Imp is alone, following my commands to help Fred. Okay. I don't think there's any problem with that, I'd certainly allow it as a DM, can't think of any RAW not to.
The Issue: Fred and Imp get into combat.
The Question: Can the Imp familiar attack their opponent during that combat?
My RAW Answer: No, because I the warlock am not in combat, don't know what's going on, and thus cannot 'give' my attack to the Imp. The imp could take other actions--Help, for example, but doesn't have an attack of its own.
What would any of you think the ruling should be? RAW? Or allow an attack? Or am I wrong and RAW would allow an attack? I as a DM would allow it. I see the main reason for the Imp not having an attack of its own as simply game balance. Letting the warlock essentially have two attacks is too much. But without the warlock character there, it's not a balance issue. If I told the Imp to 'help Fred', I'd let the imp in the warlock's absence attack the monster trying to kill Fred.
Thoughts?
RAW the Imp cannot attack because it says when you take the attack action, which you aren't doing. "Additionally, 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."
If you had Voice of the Chain Master then I would allow it because you can communicate, even if you weren't looking through his eyes at the time.
RAW the Imp cannot attack because it says when you take the attack action, which you aren't doing. "Additionally, 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."
If you had Voice of the Chain Master then I would allow it because you can communicate, even if you weren't looking through his eyes at the time.
So if the imp was alone without Voice of the CM, you wouldn't allow (houserule) the imp to attack if you were the DM? Not criticizing, just making sure. We agree about RAW, that's exactly how I read it. I guess I'd houserule because the imp is intelligent, and if I give it instructions like "Help Fred in whatever way you can", the imp, maybe unlike an owl, would be able to come to its own conclusions. So that's just why I'd rule that way. But I wouldn't pitch a fit if I was the player and a DM just went with RAW either :) Thanks for the input.
RAW the Imp cannot attack because it says when you take the attack action, which you aren't doing. "Additionally, 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."
If you had Voice of the Chain Master then I would allow it because you can communicate, even if you weren't looking through his eyes at the time.
So if the imp was alone without Voice of the CM, you wouldn't allow (houserule) the imp to attack if you were the DM? Not criticizing, just making sure. We agree about RAW, that's exactly how I read it. I guess I'd houserule because the imp is intelligent, and if I give it instructions like "Help Fred in whatever way you can", the imp, maybe unlike an owl, would be able to come to its own conclusions. So that's just why I'd rule that way. But I wouldn't pitch a fit if I was the player and a DM just went with RAW either :) Thanks for the input.
If Voice of CM didn't exist I would probably houserule it because it makes sense and doesn't really break anything. But because there is a class feature designed to allow more flexibility with familiar's scouting, it devalues the choice to take it if some of it's functionality can be gotten for free.
RAW the Imp cannot attack because it says when you take the attack action, which you aren't doing. "Additionally, 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."
If you had Voice of the Chain Master then I would allow it because you can communicate, even if you weren't looking through his eyes at the time.
So if the imp was alone without Voice of the CM, you wouldn't allow (houserule) the imp to attack if you were the DM? Not criticizing, just making sure. We agree about RAW, that's exactly how I read it. I guess I'd houserule because the imp is intelligent, and if I give it instructions like "Help Fred in whatever way you can", the imp, maybe unlike an owl, would be able to come to its own conclusions. So that's just why I'd rule that way. But I wouldn't pitch a fit if I was the player and a DM just went with RAW either :) Thanks for the input.
If Voice of CM didn't exist I would probably houserule it because it makes sense and doesn't really break anything. But because there is a class feature designed to allow more flexibility with familiar's scouting, it devalues the choice to take it if some of it's functionality can be gotten for free.
Solid point, thanks for that. I hadn't considered what I'd do as a warlock when choosing invocations if I knew my familiar could act like this. Food for thought.
Not to bash your tactics.. It works for you and I'm sure you picked Chain for more reasons but an alternative plan for the same tactic would be to go Tome, get shocking grasp then ancient book of shadows > find familiar > owl for flyby.
You can also 'ready' your action to trigger when the owl goes near the target and due to flyby the owl can fly away again.
Of course, chain is still superior for other reasons, not to mention that the owl can still be targeted if it doesn't find a safe place
I can't tell you as I'm not really sure about the way the imp's invisibility works BUT maybe consider MC'ing with Sorcerer? Errybody's doing it!
The CHA of the 2 classes will compliment each other and the Sorcerer starts with 4 cantrips of almost the same list as the wizard, who only starts with 3. Additionally I think Sorcerer has more synergies - Sorcerer origin is at level 1.. Divine grants you 2d4 to use on a missed roll & the cleric spell list. Draconic gives gives +3 unarmored. Storm sorc gives you a 10 foot fly to avoid AoO on a 1st spell cast. Shadow sorc may be great.. gives you a darkvision AND allows you to SEE through your own darkness if you use your own sorcery points (this would actually be an AWESOME pair up - 1x devil's sight warlock and 1x shadow sorc casting darkness every round).
Not to mention the quickened Eldritch blast + eldritch blast combo that is DEVASTATING..... Sorlock (or warsors) are very common builds.. just decide if you want to main warlock and go sorcerer or main sorcerer and dip warlock (this is probably easier, cuz you only need to take 2 or 3 levels) I'm actually in the same pickle. My main warlock and I want to dip sorcerer for some of the above reasons and a few more.. but with the way that spell levels (and class features) progress I have no clue what I want to do.... :(
But again, all suggestions. Make your character the way that YOU want to
Does the rule that says the familiar can't attack apply to reactions?
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.
Are you rolling for an attack? If so, then it's an attack.
Or you consider it an attack just like the attack action.
Now RAW and using semantics, Attack of Opportunity is a different action, then the Attack action, with similar effects.
That's not quite the right; you're applying the focus to the wrong area. An "attack" or "making an attack" is a component to many different actions/bonus actions/reactions.
By RAW, a familiar can't attack at all. That doesn't just mean they can't take the Attack action. Rather, it means they cannot do anything that involves an attack. They can't take the Attack action, attacks of opportunity, reaction attacks from things like Commander's Strike, etc.
When you deliver a touch spell like Shocking Grasp through a familiar, it is still you making the attack. It's just being channeled through the familiar.
A chainlock familiar can make an attack only when the Warlock specifically takes the Attack action. It still cannot attack on its own accord, take opportunity attacks, benefit from Commander's Strike, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That looks sensible to me. I think you're correct in that it's not strictly RAW, but I'd rule as you would, for the same reason.
In our campaign the setting is kinda Spelljammer/Cyberpunk 2077/WH40k/Dieselpunk with Magic.
And so one of our party member is a Clockwork Wizard (Kobold press Deep Magic:Clockwork) and one of its spells lets him imbue gears and clockwork mechanisms with up to lvl 3 spells, its one use only.
So i gave my Imp familliar a Beam hand cannon( a device that "casts" Lightning Bolt...), when he uses the "Use object" action, its like Rocket raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy...
Its quite hilarious...
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Does the rule that says the familiar can't attack apply to reactions?
Depends once again on interpretations.
You either consider an AoO has its own thing.
Or you consider it an attack just like the attack action.
Now RAW and using semantics, Attack of Opportunity is a different action, then the Attack action, with similar effects.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Not sure about the RAW. The FF spell doesn't say the Familiar "can't take the attack action". It just says the familiar "can't attack". The problem is that officially there is the 'Attack action' and an 'Attack of Opportunity', as well as spells that give you 'attacks' without giving you the official Attack Action or an Attack of Opportunity. Booming Blade, for example--as part of casting the spell, meaning you are using the Cast a Spell action, you "make an attack". So there is a thing called just 'an attack'. It's what the Attack action and the Opportunity Attack rule lets you take. You don't "make an attack action", you take the Attack action, which lets you make an 'attack'.
So both the Attack action and an AoE let you do the same thing--make 'an attack'. And the FF spell specifically just forbids the familiar from 'attacking'. If AoE allows you to 'attack', and the familiar cannot 'attack', then no AoE :(
What is interesting, and I never really put this together, is that the familiar has its own initiative roll and can act on that initiative. But the warlock allows the familiar to attack on the warlock's initiative. The warlock is the one who takes the Attack action, and at that time gives the familiar one of his attacks.
So the familiar can attack on the warlock's initiative, and then still take any other action on its own initiative. Not the way we've been playing it, but it's fairly clear RAW, and makes the familiar a little more likely to be given your attack, I think. I don't know about anyone else, but we've been playing it that if the familiar attacks by the warlock allowing it, the warlock of course loses that attack, but we've been then considering that to be the familiar's action for the round. That's seemingly incorrect.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
A ring of spell storing requires attunement.
I would allow a Familiar to cast from a ring of spell storing if:
1) The master had attuned the ring, not the familiar
2) The familiar is wearing the ring.
I remember from a previous question someone was asking about having a familiar/pet getting/using Attuned items. The short answer was that the use of the item is left up to the DM, but if the creature is part of a Spell or Feature of a character, then that character had to be the one Attuned and was affected by any passive effects of the item. I would figure that the Attuned player would also have to maintain Concentration.
I agree with that when just looking at it saying the familiar can't attack, but it also says it can take other actions which, to me, implies it is talking about the attack action rather than attacks in general.
I can take other actions. But 'making an attack' is not a combat action. There are two things in the game: the Action labeled 'attack', meaning the option you select when you do something in combat. And then there's 'making the attack' when you roll dice. For example, the Pact of the Chain description specifically says that you can allow your familiar to 'attack' when you "take the attack action". It doesn't say that your familiar can "take the attack action" when you choose, it says that the familiar can 'attack'. Similarly, the attack action itself says that it lets you 'make an attack'. It's very confusing, but here's a way to think about it, just by using slightly different words:
The language is very important. The thing the familiar is prevented from doing without a warlock's permission is the thing you make. That's the Attack-B, the thing you get to do if you take an Attack-A, or if you get an opportunity to AoE, or if you cast Green Flame Blade, etc.
If they'd just called these something different, the confusion would be alleviated. If they'd called the action you select Assault or something, and said "Taking the Assault action lets you make an attack", it would be clearer. But the 'take vs make' difference is pretty clear IMO. The spell doesn't reference the thing you take, it references the thing you make.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
RAW the Imp cannot attack because it says when you take the attack action, which you aren't doing. "Additionally, 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."
If you had Voice of the Chain Master then I would allow it because you can communicate, even if you weren't looking through his eyes at the time.
So if the imp was alone without Voice of the CM, you wouldn't allow (houserule) the imp to attack if you were the DM? Not criticizing, just making sure. We agree about RAW, that's exactly how I read it. I guess I'd houserule because the imp is intelligent, and if I give it instructions like "Help Fred in whatever way you can", the imp, maybe unlike an owl, would be able to come to its own conclusions. So that's just why I'd rule that way. But I wouldn't pitch a fit if I was the player and a DM just went with RAW either :) Thanks for the input.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If Voice of CM didn't exist I would probably houserule it because it makes sense and doesn't really break anything. But because there is a class feature designed to allow more flexibility with familiar's scouting, it devalues the choice to take it if some of it's functionality can be gotten for free.
Solid point, thanks for that. I hadn't considered what I'd do as a warlock when choosing invocations if I knew my familiar could act like this. Food for thought.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Not to bash your tactics.. It works for you and I'm sure you picked Chain for more reasons but an alternative plan for the same tactic would be to go Tome, get shocking grasp then ancient book of shadows > find familiar > owl for flyby.
You can also 'ready' your action to trigger when the owl goes near the target and due to flyby the owl can fly away again.
Of course, chain is still superior for other reasons, not to mention that the owl can still be targeted if it doesn't find a safe place
I can't tell you as I'm not really sure about the way the imp's invisibility works BUT maybe consider MC'ing with Sorcerer? Errybody's doing it!
The CHA of the 2 classes will compliment each other and the Sorcerer starts with 4 cantrips of almost the same list as the wizard, who only starts with 3. Additionally I think Sorcerer has more synergies - Sorcerer origin is at level 1.. Divine grants you 2d4 to use on a missed roll & the cleric spell list. Draconic gives gives +3 unarmored. Storm sorc gives you a 10 foot fly to avoid AoO on a 1st spell cast. Shadow sorc may be great.. gives you a darkvision AND allows you to SEE through your own darkness if you use your own sorcery points (this would actually be an AWESOME pair up - 1x devil's sight warlock and 1x shadow sorc casting darkness every round).
Not to mention the quickened Eldritch blast + eldritch blast combo that is DEVASTATING..... Sorlock (or warsors) are very common builds.. just decide if you want to main warlock and go sorcerer or main sorcerer and dip warlock (this is probably easier, cuz you only need to take 2 or 3 levels) I'm actually in the same pickle. My main warlock and I want to dip sorcerer for some of the above reasons and a few more.. but with the way that spell levels (and class features) progress I have no clue what I want to do.... :(
But again, all suggestions. Make your character the way that YOU want to
Are you rolling for an attack? If so, then it's an attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's not quite the right; you're applying the focus to the wrong area. An "attack" or "making an attack" is a component to many different actions/bonus actions/reactions.
By RAW, a familiar can't attack at all. That doesn't just mean they can't take the Attack action. Rather, it means they cannot do anything that involves an attack. They can't take the Attack action, attacks of opportunity, reaction attacks from things like Commander's Strike, etc.
When you deliver a touch spell like Shocking Grasp through a familiar, it is still you making the attack. It's just being channeled through the familiar.
A chainlock familiar can make an attack only when the Warlock specifically takes the Attack action. It still cannot attack on its own accord, take opportunity attacks, benefit from Commander's Strike, etc.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.